UC-NRLF 


H    X 
86 
S5 
1913 

MAIN 


ji: 


ALISM 


ORIGINAL  PAPERS  BY 


ING  MEN  &  WOMEN 


GIFT  OF 
erl 


4? 


Why  I  Am 
Opposed  to  Socialism 


Original  Papers  by 

Leading  Men  and  Women 


EDWARD    SILVIN 


SACRAMENTO,     CALIFORNIA 
U.  S.  A. 


Copyright,    1913 
By    EDWARD    SlLVIN 


55 


INDEX   TO  AUTHORS 


MA(/\/ 


Adams,  Thomas  Sewall 36-37 

Allen,    Alfred 27 

Allen,  John  Robert 52 

Anderson,  Rasmus  Bjorn 44-45 

Andrews,  Martin  Register 26 

Arford,  Fremont 31 

Barr,  Granville  Walter...       __32-33 

I 

Barstow,  George  Eames 41 

Baxter,  James  Phinney 45-46 

Beard,  Daniel  Carter 20-21 

Bell,  Mackenzie 22 

Benington,  Arthur 8 

Bigelow,  Edward  Fuller 30 

Binney,  Charles  Chauncey 23-24 

Boyd-Carpenter,   William  B.__ll-12 

Brazier,  Marion  Howard 17 

Brown,  Mrs.  M.  McClellan 7 

Brownscombe,  Jennie 42 

Burke,   John   Butler 19-20 

Cavanaugh,   John 32 

Cazalet,  Edward  Alexander___17-18 

Clark,  John  Bates 8-9 

Crowell,  John  Franklin 34 

Cutler,  James  Elbcrt 44 

Eggert,  Charles  Augustus 5-6 

Ellis,  George  Washington 46-52 

Ellis,  Horace 10 

Emerson,  Samuel  Franklin 46 

Esenwein,  Joseph  Berg 13 

Ferguson,  Charles 45 

Field,  Walter  Taylor 40 

Gaines,  Clement  Carrington___39 
Garvin,  Lucius  Fayette  Clark__12 

Giering,  Eugene  T 53 

Hastings,  William  Granger___20 
heald,  G.  H._.  __35 


Hovey,  Lewis  R 14-16 

Jefferys,  Upton  S 20 

Kelly,  Robert  Lincoln 35-3G 

Kizer,  Edwin  Dicken 17 

Krout,  Mary  Hannah 14 

Ladd,  George  Trumbull 36 

Ladd,  Horatio  Oliver 21-22 

Leckie,  A.  S 40 

Lee,  Elmer 41-42 

Levermore,  Charles  Herbert 22 

Leveroni,  Frank 44 

Lightner,  Ezra  Wilberforce 43 

Linn,  Walter  R 37 

Long,  John  Luther 12-13 

McConnell,  Francis  J 7-8 

Mencken,  Henry  Louis 6-7 

Xevin,  Theodore  Williamson__29-30 

Owen,  Douglas 27-28 

Painter,   Franklin    Verzelius 

Newton 28-29 

Penrose,  Stephen  Beasley  Lin- 

nard   16 

Post,  Louis  Freeland 30 

Purrington,  William  Archer 18 

Raymond,  George  Lansing 9-10 

Russell,   Isaac   Franklin 25-26 

Scheffauer,  Herman 38 

Screws,  William  Wallace 19 

Super,   Charles   William 13-14 

Terhune,  William  Lewis 37-38 

Thayer,  William  Roscoe 29 

Tutt,  John  Calhoun 31 

Walker,  Albert  H 30-31 

White,  William  Allen 33-34 

Wilcox,  Lute 34 

Wilson,  Alonzo  Edes__  __24-25 


267705 


The  gentle  reader,  who  is  inclined  to  say  why 
he  is  opposed  to  Socialism,  is  cordially  invited  to 
contribute  his  thoughts  to  the  future  editions  of 
this  little  book. 


\Vliy  I  Am  Opposed  to  Socialism 


Eggert,  Charles  Augustus.  (Author  and  College  Professor.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism,  first,  because  it  is  not  an  indue 
tively  obtained  system,  but  an  "ism"  that  postulates  qualities 
in  the  individuality  of  a  nation  which  no  nation,  or  community 
even,  has  yet  developed  to  a  sufficiently  high  state  to  make 
this  "ism"  fit  to  be  seriously  tried. 

-Jj  Second:  Much  of  what  Socialism  teaches  will  be  put  to 
the  test  by  society  anyhow,  for  society  is  based  on  interest,  on 
financial  considerations,  and  it  has  been  found  very  long  ago, 
that  co-operation  cheapens  products,  while  steadying  employ- 
ment. 

Third:  As  a  working  system  Socialism  is  based  on  the 
limited  intellectual  powers  of  a  large  number  of  people  who 
Avill  not  receive  systematic  instruction,  or  cannot.  Any  large 
school  shows  how  large  the  proportion  of  children  is  who  must 
eventually  be,  as  adults,  members  of  this  number,  and,  by  exer- 
cising their  right  to  vote  for  their  officers  and  leaders,  will 
make  a  scientific  and  economical  management  exceedingly  dif 
ficult,  if  not  impossible.  Tried  on  a  limited  scale  it  amounts 
only  to  co-operation — different  from  Socialism. 

Fourth :  The  existing  system  is  based  on  the  rewards  held 
out  to  individual  effort,  thus  furnishing  leaders  who,  by  accu- 
mulating capital  through  self-denial,  great  moderation  in  the 
pursuit  of  pleasure,  and  strenuous  work,  will  be  eventually 
enabled  to  establish  large  combinations,  factories,  corporations 
of  all  sorts,  which,  as  history  and  daily  experience  prove,  pay 
even  the  unintelligent  laborers  higher  wages  and  furnish  them 
more  security  than  they  could  possibly  have  obtained  if  left  to 
themselves  as  Socialistic  organizations.  In  order  to  obtain  the 
best  results,  however,  a  protective  tariff  must  keep  out  undue 
foreign  competition. 

Fifth :    Differences  of  opinion  on  these  points  can  be  set- 


tied  satisfactorily  only  by  a  close  and  careful  study  of  the 
history  of  business,  and  the  leading  Socialists,  Marx,  etc.,  have 
been  shown  to  be  palpably  and  grievously  incapable  of  such 
study. 

Sixth:  Socialism  would  lead  to  governmental  art,  science 
and  literature,  that  is  to  say  to  the  counterfeit  of  real  art, 
science,  and  literature.  It  would  be  the  rule  of  the  unintelli- 
gent and  largely  of  the  demagogues  (for  such  would  stand  a 
better  chance  than  the  honest  and  thoughtful,  for  election  to 
offices). 

Seventh:  Socialism  could  not  be  established  (as  an  "ism") 
except  by  robbery.  Good  men  would  not  lend  themselves  to 
such  business. 


#     * 


Mencken,  Henry  Louis.  (Author  of  "The  Philosophy  of  Fried- 
rich  Nietzsche,"  editor  of  The  Players'  Ibsen,  part- 
author  with  Robert  Rives  LaMonte  of  "Men  vs.  the 
Man."  Member  of  the  editorial  staff  of  the  Balti- 
more Evening  Sun.) 

^^  I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because,  in  general,  it  means  a 
vain  and  costly  attack  upon  the  immutable  natural  law  that 
the  strong  shall  have  advantage  over  the  weak.  I  do  not  de- 
fend that  law  as  perfect,  nor  do  I  even  maintain  that  it  is  just. 
If  I  had  the  world  to  make  over  I  should  probably  try  to  find 
something  to  take  its  place,  something  measurably  less  waste- 
ful and  cruel.  But  the  Avorld  is  as  it  is  and  the  law  is  as  it  is. 
Say  what  you  will  against  it.  you  must  at  least  admit  that  it 
works,  that  it  tends  to  destroy  the  botched  and  useless,  that  it 
places  a  premium  upon  enterprise  and  courage,  that  it  makes 
for  health  and  strength,  that  it  is  the  most  powerful  of  all 
agents  of  human  progress.  "Would  brotherhood,  supposing  it 
to  be  achieved,  do  as  well?  I  doubt  it.  Brotherhood  would 
help  the  soft  man,  the  clinging  man,  the  stupid  man.  But 
would  it  help  the  alert  and  resourceful  man  ?  Answer  for  your- 
self. Jsn't  it  a  fact  that  difficulties  make  daring,  that  effort 
makes  efficiency?  Do  not  functions  develop  by  use?  Does 
the  cell  act  or  react? 

Meanwhile,  I  grant  all  schemes  of  brotherhood  one  indubi- 
table merit.     Socialism  shares  it  with  Christianity.     It  is  this: 


that  they  are  eternally  impossible  of  carrying  out,  that  men 
cannot  actually  live  them.  The  Beatitudes,  after  2,000  years, 
are  still  mere  poetry.  No  human  fiat  will  ever  repeal  the  law 
of  natural  selection.  No  rebellion  of  slaves  will  ever  break 
down  that  great  barrier  which  separates  slaves  from  masters. 


Brown,  Mrs.  M.  McClellan,  (Lecturer  and  Reformer.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism- 
First  :  Because  it  is  unnatural.  Men  are  born  free,  but 
far  from  being  equal  in  competency  mentally,  morally,  or  spir- 
itually to  use  with  advantage  to  self  or  others,  the  proceeds 
of  earth,  or  the  elements,  or  labor;  even  under  the  same  civil, 
social,  and  educational  opportunities  (often  in  the  same  family) 
some  are  incompetent  to  make  ends  meet. 

Second :    Because  it   is  impracticable,   unjust,   and   detri- 
niental  to  development  and  ennoblement  of  the  human  race. 
Ix^which  is  the  manifest  object  of  human  creation. 

Third :  Because  it  destroys  the  ultimate  power  of  individu- 
ality, which  is  the  unit  of  State  organization  and  social  protec- 
^^     tion.     The  individual  is  the  axis  of  reality  in  all  the  objective 
changes  for  human  uplift. 

Fourth:    Because   the   Spirit   of   God   is   the   humanizing 
nower  in  the  world,  given  to  individual  spirits  as  a  complete 
^iact.  large  or  small,  but  personal  in  dynamic  currents  of  bodily 
gifts  as  varied  as  the  offices  of  the  human  organs. 

Fifth:    Because  civilization  is  the  fruit  of  developed  indi 
vidual  consciousness  in  a  concrete,  unsharable  experience  of 

personality  which  makes  the  vital  push  for  progress  in  the 
world;  even  a  social  consciousness  so-called,  must  turn  on  the 
axis  of  the  individual. 

Sixth :  Because  the  only  historic  and  scientific  demonstra- 
tion of  Socialism  is  original  barbarism.  Set  the  pot  in  the 
midst  of  the  group  and  let  each  use  his  paw. 


McConnell,  Francis  J.  (Bishop  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Denver,  Colorado.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  it  goes  farther  than  is 


necessary.  The  real  reforms  for  which  Socialism  stands  are 
very  important,  but  I  think  these  can  be  secured  without  ac- 
cepting the  extreme  puttings  of  Socialistic  doctrine.  Within 
the  past  twenty-five  years  we  have  reached  many  of  the  re- 
sults of  the  Socialistic  programme  and  yet  without  adopting 
extreme  Socialism. 


Benington,  Arthur.  (Journalist.) 

'I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  hpf*ang^JL4**4WA  that  the  State 
was  made  for  manJ_jiojLman  for  th£_.State^ 

Because  every  one  of  the  infinite  number  of  projects  of 
Socialism  tends  to  discourage  individual  effort ;  hence,  in  a 
\  x^feally  Socialistic  State  there  would  be  no  incentive  to  achieve- 
ment in  art,  literature,  science,  discovery,  etc.  The  dull  level 
of  mediocrity  would  prevail;  stagnation  would  take  the  place 
of  progress. 

Because  the  leading  Socialists  and  all  the  Socialist  news- 
papers I  have  ever  seen  attack  religion. 

Because  Socialism  would  abolish  the  home  and  make  the 

State  responsible  for  the  bringing  up  of  children.     The  result 

of  this  would  be  to  substitute  a  breeding  farm  for  matrimony. 

\feDve — which  cannot  be  abolished — would  have  no  place  in  the 

\/  scheme  of  things ;  it  would  struggle  against  institutions,  either 

secretly  in  spite  of  them  and  contrary  to  them,  or  openly  in 

rebellion.     This  is  true  not  only  of  sex  love,  but  of  parental 

and  filial  love. 

Because  it  is  contrary  to  all  the  principles  upon  which  the 
States  of  America  have  won  success  in  the  world.     It 
"an  exotic  importation  from  lands  in  which  liberty  is  stifled. 
brought  here  by  persons  who  do  not  understand  American  in 
stitutions,  taken  up  as  a  fad  by  a  few  dreamers. 
/        Because  men  always  cease  to  be  Socialists  as  soon  as  they 
•'nave  won  success  in  life ;  suggesting  that  Socialism  is  merely  a 
\      >tfague  expression  of  the  discontent  of  some,  the  disappointment 
of  others. 


Clark,  John  Bates.  (Professor  of  political  economy  and  author.) 
I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  it  would  soon  impover 


ish  workers.  The  income  to  be  divided  would  be  smaller  than 
is^supposed  by  advocates  of  Socialism,  and  it  would  grow 
smaller  per  capita  as  the  number  of  workers  increased. 


Raymond,  George  Lansing.  (Author  and  University  Professor.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  think  it  founded  on 
a  misconception  of  the  requirements  of  human  nature;  and 
this,  mainly,  for  three  reasons: 

First :    A  great  many  people  will  not  practice  diligence 
(^a«drthrift,  unless  stimulated  to  do  so  by  a  possibility  of  obtain 
ing,  possessing  and  using  something  that  they  can  call  their 
own.     This  is  something  that  Socialism  theoretically,  and  so 
far  as  it  has  been  applied,  practically,  would  deny  them. 

Second:  A  great  many  will  not  work  at  all,  when  their 
only  inducement  is  that  others  wish  them  to  work,  or  need 
their  help.  Socialism,  if  established,  would  be  obliged — merely 
to  secure  support  for  the  community — to  force  such  people  to 
work  against  their  own  wills.  This  would  inevitably  involve 
the  re-establishment  of  a  system  of  human  slavery. 

/>JxThird :  All  a  man's  mental  and  moral  development  in  this 
world — to  say  nothing  of  what  may  come  after  death — needs 
training^  According  to  a  law  apparently  divine,  but  certainly 
human,  this  training,  whether  in  home,  school,  business  or 
society,*  is  imparted  by  means  of  discipline.  The  discipline  is 
mainly  derived  from  the  circumstances  of  life  in  which  one 
finds  himself  placed,  and,  in  such  cases,  is  always  accompanied 
by  dissatisfaction  with  one's  alloted  place,  and  by  actual  suf- 
fering. The  Socialist  aims  to  escape  from  this  dissatisfaction 
and  suffering  by  making  a  change  in  his  circumstances — such 
a  change,  for  instance,  as  would  make  a  king  a  servant,  or 
make  all  men  kings  or  servants.  But  history  and  experience 
show  that  kings,  whose  friends  die,  courtiers  flatter,  and  ene- 
mies trick,  are  no  more  free  from  the  sufferings  attendant  upon 
discipline  than  are  servants.  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  to 
occupy  a  different  position  in  life  means  merely  to  be  placed 
in  a  different  part  of  the  same  apparently  divine  and  certainly 
social  machine  which — as  some  have  faith  to  believe — is  at 
work  grinding  out  of  the  coarse  grain  of  humanity  what  shall, 
some  day,  prove  to  be  its  fine  flour.  One  who  has  the  wisdom 


to  apply  this  theory  to  life,  will,  in  no  position  that  a  man  can 
fill,  feel  either  too  haughty  or  too  humiliated  to  sympathize 
with  everybody,  and  to  do  his  best  everywhere  to  alleviate 
suffering,  lessen  oppression,  equalize  opportunity,  enthrone 
justice,  and  prove  himself,  in  every  sense  of  the  term,  a  fellow- 
man.  The  result  upon  individual  consciousness  and  conscience 
of  this  attitude  of  mind  is  the  most  important  of  any  that  can 
be  exerted  in  order  to  secure  human  welfare.  It  differs  from 
Socialism  in  being  derived — as  Socialism  is  not — from  a  recog- 
nition of  the  exact  and  entire  truth — a  truth  that  includes, 
both  that  which  is  material  and  spiritual,  philosophical  and  re- 
ligious. 


Ellis,  Horace.  (President  Vincennes  University.) 

Socialism  originally  meant  to  become  an  effective  protest 
against  the  tyrannies  of  all  forms  of  monarchy.  If  it  had  suc- 
ceeded in  its  ambition  we  all  had  been  Socialists.  But  it  failed 
utterly.  Its  failure  may  be  traced  to  certain  fundamental 
errors  as  to  the  means  it  should  employ  to  realize  its  purpose. 
It  presumed  that  most  practices  it  found  in  the  economic  world 
were  inherently  bad  because  they  had  been  employed  by  heart- 
less men  in  furthering  their  individual  interests.  Socialism 
denies  the  accepted  maxim  relating  to  competition — in  spite 
of  the  evidences  of  history  which  have  fully  established  the  fact 
that,  in  every  realm  of  human  activity,  competition  has  been 
one  of  the  mightiest  factors  for  individual,  community,  national 
and  racial  prestige.  Socialism  would  deny  to  virile,  purposeful, 
masterful  leaders  of  men  the  privilege  of  leadership  because, 
forsooth,  some  such  leaders  have  misused  authority  reposed 
in  them.  In  lieu  of  this  practice,  it  would  constitute  society 
at  large  the  rightful  leader  in  all  economic  matters — because 
some  evidences  appear  which  indicate  that  society  possesses 
some  attributes  of  stability.  Fatal — both  of  these  deductions. 
There  are  many  thousands  of  good  Socialists,  but  few  sub- 
stantial economic  contentions  behind  them. 


—  10  — 


Boyd-Carpenter,  William  B.,   B.A.,   F.R.G.S.      (Publicist,  Ad- 
dress: Wynstones,  Ascot,  England.) 

The  world  has  always  sighed  after  novelty.  Even  St.  Paul 
found  that  the  Athenians  of  old  longed  to  hear  some  new  thing. 
The  craze  for  novelty,  or  an  increasing  curiosity  are  the  symp- 
toms of  the  decline  of  a  philosophic  outlook  on  life.  It  is  the 
idea  that  a  change  means  reform.  Now  reform  can  never  be  a 
change  in  the  substance,  but  rather  an  application,  a  direct 
and  precise  application  of  a  thought-out  remedy  for  a  particu- 
lar and  authentic  grievance.  Nor  is  innovation  a  real  reform — 
we  have  to  change  our  clothes  because  they  are  wet,  but  this 
does  not  mean  we  reform  ourselves  or  our  clothes.  "Woman 
makes  an  innovation  in  the  shape  of  her  clothes  or  her  hats — 
she  does  not  reform  her  clothes  or  her  hats.  But  Socialists  and 
syndicalists  demand  the  immediate  alteration  of  the  capital 
ists'  system  of  production — by  which  they  mean,  if  they  mean 
anything,  such  a  reform  as  will  give  to  them,  as  a  political 
party  within  any  State,  the  power  of  jLsing  the  forces,  political 
and  capitalistic  within  the  State  on  "Behalf  of  their  own  section 
of  the  community,  unless  they  mean^his,  they  cannot  hope  to 
benefit  wages  and  employment.  If  they  do  not  mean  this,  they 
are  hoodwinking  workingmen  and  merely  are  seeking  a  change, 
not  a  reform.  Change  is  impermanent — therefore  transitory 
change  is  merely  the  expression  of  want  of  tone  in  the  political 
health  of  a  people.  But  Socialism  and  syndicalism  by  seeking 
the  benefit  of  the  many  workers  at  the  expense  of  the  few  cap- 
italists, is  creating  a  form  of  injustice,  which  in  their  main  doc- 
trines Socialists  assert  they  are  hoping  to  avoid.  Injustice  to 
any  section  of  a  community  is  the  creation  of  inequality  again 
in  a  community.  If  we  cannot  reform  with  equity,  let  us  not 
reform  at  all.  As  we  put  back  the  hands  of  the  clock's  prog- 
ress, so  we  recreate  inequalities.  Life  at  best  is  a  matter  of 
compensation ;  it  is  the  disturbance  of  this  balance  which  makes 
for  injustice  and  inequality. 

Then  again,  Socialism  has  been  tried  and  has  always  re- 
sulted in  the  re-erection  of  the  capitalist  system.  The  Revolu- 
tions of  France— 1789,  1832,  1848,  1871— all  were  to  usher  in 
the  millennium.  But  France  is  capitalistic  today  and  amongst 
the  wealthiest  nations  on  the  earth.  The  German  Revolution, 
1848,  or  the  Spanish  Revolution — all  began  in  high  hopes  of 
republics  to  be  ruled  by  Democrats.  All  these  countries  have 

—  11  — 


gone  back  to  what  the  world  has  tried  and  found  stands  best 
the  test  of  time.  Nations,  like  individuals,  are  impatient  and 
do  damage  in  fits  of  temper  for  which  many  years  of  steady 
care  are  required  to  effect  the  repairs.  The  world  wants  more 
religion  in  active  life  and  more  ostracism  of  the  irreligious. 
The  fear  of  public  disgust  is  the  beginning  of  ordered  honesty. 
The  strength  of  a  public  opinion  is  the  poor  man's  friend.  "To 
complain  of  the  age  in  which  we  live ;  to  revile  the  possessors 
of  power ;  to  lament  the  past ;  to  conceive  wild  hopes  for  the 
future,  are  the  common  dispositions  of  the  vast  majority  of 
men."  They  are  also  the  attributes  of  laziness  and  the  form 
of  a  vulgar  levity.  A  nation  must  have  all  classes — grumblers 
and  saints,  happy  and  querulous,  in  order  to  make  strong  men. 


Garvin,  Lucius  Fayette  Clark.  (Ex-Governor  of  R,  I.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  its  theory  is  not  proved 
to  my  satisfaction.  The  public  ownership  of  all  artificial  in- 
struments of  production,  means  that  no  interest  upon  capital 
should  go  to  individuals.  This  means  that  the  person  who 
builds  a  boat  to  let  should  not  own  it,  and  that  the  payment 
made  by  a  borrower  for  its  use  should  not  go  to  the  builder, 
but  into  the  public  treasury. 

Socialism  asserts  that  if  one  person  catches  fifteen  fish, 

another  ten,  and  third  but  five,  they  are  not  each  entitled  to 

the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  his  fish.     This  is  in  violation  of  the 

Axnatural  law  that  the  value  produced  is  the  just  reward  of 

labor. 

Land  values,  being  earned  by  the  community,  belong  to  the 
community ;  and  economic  rent  should  be  taken  by  the  com- 
munity (in  lieu  of  taxation)  for  public  purposes. 

The  Socialist  does  not  distinguish  between  the  artificial 
and  the  natural  instruments  of  production — two  things  wholly 
different  in  kind.  He  confuses  the  just  return  to  capital  with 
the  unjust  return  to  monopoly. 


Long,  John  Luther.  (Author  and  Playwright.) 
I  don 't  know  what  you  mean  by  mere  "Socialism."    I  wish 

—  12  — 


I  did.    I  wish  you  did.    But,  the  deuce  of  it  is  that  no  two  per- 
sons seem  to  mean  the  same  thing — or  else  no  one  knows  what   ) 
any  one  means.     If  it  means  an  honest  brotherhood,  wherein   I 
it  is  recognized  that  all  are  not  equal,  to  the  end  that  those  / 
who  are  more  or  have  more  shall  help  those  who  are  less  and  I 
have  less,  I  am  for  it  with  all  my  heart.     If  it  means  that  the  ' 
vicious  shall  profit  from  the  just — no.     If  it  means  that  the 
loafer  shall  live  without  work — no.    For  that  means  that  some 
one  else — many — must  be  working  in  his  stead.     If  Socialism 
means  that  genius  and  idiocy  must  sleep  in  the  same  bed  and 
be  equals  I  am  very  much  against  it.    We  are  not  all  equal.  We 
are  not  even  born  equal.    No  pronunciamento  can  make  us  so. 
And  if  Socialism  of  the  McXamara  and  Ettor  and  Giovannitti 
sort  means  to  make  us  so,  it  might  as  well  quit  now  as  later. 
It  is  trying  to  amalgamate  unamalgamables. 


Esenwein,  Joseph  Berg.  (Author  and  Editor  Lippincott's 

Magazine.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because,  with  all  its  attendant 
weaknesses  in  its  present  unperfected  state,  competition  is  the 
best  known  stimulus  to  ambition.  Human  nature  can  never  be 
essentially  altered  by  either  legislation  or  a  new  social  system, 
therefore  we  shall  always  need  competitive  incentives  to  make 
us  do  what  we  can.  Our  present  system  needs  decided  modifi- 
cation, but  it  does  not  need  the  reversal  that  Socialism  pro- 
poses. 


r>4>uper,  Charles  William.  (Retired  College  President.) 

Socialism  is  advoted  in  so  many  different  forms  that  it  is 
difficult  to  deal  with  the  term  intelligently  without  prefixing 
a  somewhat  lengthy  definition.  Every  government  is  at  pres- 
ent adopting  some  of  the  features  of  the  Socialistic  creed. 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  in  so  far  as  it  hinders  individual 
initiative  and  enterprise.  No  community  ever  made  a  great  in- 
vention, or  an  important  discovery,  or  created  a  great  work  of 

—  13  — 


art,  or  planned  a  great  enterprise.  The  first  step  forward 
must  always  be  taken,  or  at  least  proposed,  by  some  one  per- 
son. I  believe  the  State  should  protect  those  who  cannot  take 
care  of  themselves,  especially  children,  and  those  who  have 
proved  unable  to  stand  the  strain  of  modern  economic  condi- 
tions. Those  who  are  weak  should  not  be  left  to  lie  helpless 
along  the  path  of  progress.  But  I  do  not  believe  government 
has  a  right  to  dictate  how  many  hours  an  adult  shall  labor,  or 
Avhat  wages  his  employer  shall  pay  him.  The  men  who  have 
done  and  are  still  doing  great  things  in  the  world  have  not 
worked  a  certain  number  of  hours  in  twenty-four,  but  all  the 
time.  I8ocialism,  to  a  certain  extent  at  least,  puts  a  premium 
on  inefficienc£x~ft  is  a  serious  objection  to  Socialism  that  it 
lias  proved  a  failure  wh£j?«ver  it  has  been  tried.  ""TfTis  a  return 
to  primitive  conditions.  The  prospect  of  getting  something  for 
nothing  is  a  strong  incentive  to  idleness.  Most  men  are  natur- 
ally lazy.  The  power  of  the  State  to  create  value  is  very  lim- 
ited}*  If  it  provides  an  army  of  officials  whose  constant  and 
ubiquitous  interference  with  production  limits  the  collective 
output,  they  must  be  paid  from  the  earnings  of  individuals. 
This  must  increase  the  cost  of  living.  Laws  should  be  passed 
and  enforced  to  help  the  weak  and  restrain  the  wicked,  but 
they  should  not  put  too  heavy  a  clog  on  those  who  are  by  na- 
ture qualified  to  succeed.  You  cannot  promote  the  prosperity 
of  a  community  by  taxing  the  strong  for  the  benefit  of  the 
weak,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  The  State  should  be  partic- 
ularly vigilant  against  giving  any  encouragement  to  the  lazy, 
the  shiftless  and  the  willfully  inefficient. 


Krout,  Mary  Hannah.  (Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  it  is  impossible  and  un- 
philosophical.  All  the  measures  advocated  by  Socialists  today 
—  or  most  of  them  —  were  advocated  by  the/French  in  the  Revo- 
lution of  1785,  with  disastrous  results.  * 


Hovey,  Lewis  R.     (Editor,  The  Record,  Haverhill,  Mass.) 
I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  it  is  unscientific,  unwise, 

—  14  — 


and  would  destroy  liberty  and  progress  for  the  human  race. 

The  bed-rock  theory  of  Socialism  is  that  under  the  present 

in,  wealth  and  industry  concentrates  into  fewer  and  fewer 
hands,  that  the  big  fish  eat  the  little  fish,  and  so  on  until  so- 
ciety is  confronted  with  a  great  proletarian  class  on  the  one 
hand,  with  nothing  but  their  labor  power,  and  on  the  other  a 
few  very  rich  plutocrats  who  own  all  the  means  of  production 
and  exchange.  That  this  theory  is  unsound  and  unscientific  is 
proved  in  a  thousand  ways  by  every  blue  book  of  every  indus- 
trial nation  on  earth. 

The  number  of  wealth-owners  in  Europe  has  increased 
twice  as  rapidly  as  population  during  the  past  twenty  years. 
In  the  United  States  we  find  that  ownership  of  land,  railways, 
hanks,  bonds,  industrial  stocks,  etc.,  have  actually  increased 
three  or  four  times  as  rapidly  as  the  population.  For  instance : 
In  1901,  the  year  of  the  organization  of  the  " Steel  Trust,"  so- 
called,  there  were  just  about  fifty-five  thousand  men  and  wo- 
men who  owned  all  the  iron  and  steel  plants  in  this  country, 
and  at  this  time  the  Steel  Company  did  seventy  per  cent,  of  the 
iron  and  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  the  steel  production  of  the 
nation.  Today  the  U.  S.  Steel  Company  produces  only  forty- 
five  per  cent,  of  the  iron  and  steel,  and  in  place  of  fifty-five 
thousand  owners  of  the  iron  and  steel  business,  there  are  now 
over  three  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  owners.  Seventeen 
years  ago  the  Great  Northern  Railway  was  owned  by  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty-tw6  stockholders;  today  that  same  railroad 
has  eighteen  thousand  owners. 

An  investigation  by  the  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce, 
a  short  while  ago,  proved  that  two  hundred  and  thirty-one  in- 
dustrial and  railway  corporations  had  ten  years  ago  less  than 
two  hundred  and  thirty  thousand  owners,  but  those  same  com- 
panies now  have  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five  thousand  own- 
ers (round  numbers).  Like  illustrations  could  be  cited  to  fill 
pages  of  this  book.  This  showfc  that  the  so-called  scientific 
theory  of  Marx  Socialism  is  a  myth,  a  dream,  an  imagination 
from  the  brain  of  Karl  Marx.  Socialism  wottM^Teunwise  be- 
cause it  would  be  an  attempt  to  change  human  nature  by  eco- 
nomic and  political  processes.  This  world  has  progressed  in 
just  that  proportion  as  it  has  got  away  from  things  Socialistic. 
The  imperialistic  Socialism  of  ancient  Rome  destroyed  that 
greatest  of  nations;  the  barbarian  Socialism  of  Peru,  with 

—  15  — 


thirty  million  followers,  was  destroyed  by  a  handful  of  Span- 
ish adventurers. 

The  Socialization  of  railways,  the  municipal  ownership  of 
a  street  railway,  a  gas  plant  or  an  electric  lighting  plant,  has, 
as  a  rule,  proved  a  failure  when  all  the  facts  are  taken  into 
consideration.  This  wild  yell  of  the  Socialists,  that  labor  re- 
ceives but  a  small  part  of  the  wealth  it  produces,  has  no  foun- 
dation in  fact  and  is  but  the  uncouth  and  unintelligent  expres- 
sion of  minds  who  were  never  made  for  statistical  insight  or 
investigation. 

The  promise  of  the  "full  value  of  your  production"  is  a 
false  promise  and  known  to  be  such  by  every  intelligent  So- 
cialist. The  workers  today  do  far  less  work,  with  less  hours, 
and  yet  receive  twice  as  high  wages  compared  fifty  years  ago. 

;This  is  due  to  organization  and  invention  of  the  few.  That  is, 
a  small  minority  of  society  have  organized  industry  and  made 
economic  production  possible;  "they  have  made  two  blades  of 
grass  grow  where  one  grew  before."  The  Socialists  would 
reverse  this,  for  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  under  the  blighting 
influence  of  economic  Socialism,  production  would  go  down. 
Politically,  Socialism  would  destroy  liberty.  A  pure  dem- 
racy  leads  straight  to  despotism.  Nothing  is  more  despotic 
than  the  bossism  of  the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world  today, 
and  if  ever  the  nations  of  the  world  go  to  Socialism,  they  will 
go  to  a  regime  of  mob  rule  directed  by  a  Socialist  oligarchy, 
and  then  the  liberty  of  man  will  be  absolutely  destroyed. 


Penrose,  Stephen  Beasley  Linnard.   (President,  Whitman 

College.) 

I  am  not  in  favor  of  that  very  attractive  theory,  Socialism, 
first,  on  psychological  grounds.  It  rests  upon  an  unscientific 
analysis  of  human  interests  and  motives.  It  overlooks  or  un- 
dervalues strong  tendencies  of  human  nature.  It  may  be  called 
a  thpnry_for_angels,  not  for  man. 

Second,  on  practical  grounds ;  it  cannot  work  well  because 
it  carfTsupply  neither  sufficient  motive  nor  sufficient  machinery 
to  secure  efficiency,  either  in  production  or  distribution. 

I  applaud  the  moral  impulse  which  is  found  in  many  So- 
cialists, but  I  do  not  approve  their  solution  for  great  economic 
problems. 

—  16  — 


Kizer,  Edwin  Dicken.  (College  President.) 

I  am  in  favor  of  that  which  means  the  correcting  of  the 
evils  that  allow  one  man  to  prey  upon  another  when  that  prey- 
ing is  personal  or  enters  into  the  effect  of  the  preyer,  in  com 
bination  with  conditions  to  be  remedied  by  economic  changes. 
But  the  very  radical  differences  manifest  among  the  Socialists 
themselves,  i.  e.,  those  who  accept  Marx,  and  those  who  deny 
him  in  his  main  statements ;  the  revolutionist,  who  insists  upon 
a  revolution,  by  blood,  if  necessary,  and  the  evolutionist,  who 
looks  for  a  more  gradual  development,  would  make  me  hesitate 
to  cast  my  lot  with  such  a  divided  army. 

Again  I  am  not  quite  certain  that  I  am  willing  to  give  first 
place  to  the  forces  that  the  scientific  Socialist  places  as  funda- 
mental in  the  affairs  of  men.  I  must  also  confess  to  a  lingering 
of  the  older  theory  of  individualism  that  constrains  me  to  be- 
lieve that  at  least  a  part  (those  for  example  who  by  brain  or 
circumstance  are  leaders)  of  mankind,  will  be  personally  re- 
generated by  a  high  spiritual  motive  before  the  Socialist  ideal 
is  possible  to  think  of  even. 

Also,  radicalism  never  reaches  in  practice  what  it  aims  to 
perform.  A  little  less  of  the  ultimate,  with  destructive  acts 
that  undermine  man's  faith  in  his  present  creation,  and  a  little 
more  of  the  doing  the  task  before  us  is  what  is  needed.  If  So- 
cialism is  inevitable,  as  some  think  it  is,  we  can  neither  help 
nor  hinder ;  evolution  of  moral  and  spiritual  forces  entirely 
rule  the  average  man  out  of  the  contest. 


Brazier,  Marion  Howard.  (Journalist  and  Lecturer.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  do  not  favor  anything 
likely  to  develop  anarchy.  Socialistic  agitation  tends  to  pro- 
mote unrest  and  discord.  If  granted  my  divine  right  to  vote. 
I  might  look  into  it  more  closely  and  get  another  point  of  view. 


Cazalet,  Edward  Alexander.   (President  of  the  Anglo-Russian 
Literary  Society,  Imperial  Institute,  London.) 

Socialism  has  been  defined  as  the  name  given  to  schemes 
—  17  — 


for  regenerating  society  by  a  more  equal  distribution  of  prop- 
erty and  especially  by  substituting  the  principle  of  association 
for  that  of  competition. 

A  great  statesman  and  author,  M.  de  Tocqueville,  branded 
Socialism  as  an  energetic  and  pernicious  appeal  to  the  lower 
passions  of  mankind;  as  a  system  of  which  the  basis  was  a 
thorough  mistrust  of  liberty,  a  hearty  contempt  of  man  indi- 
vidually. 

The  shrewd  and  experienced  L.  A.  Thiers  in  his  treatise 
"De  la  Propriete,"  also  combats  the  maxim:  "La  propriete 
c'est  le  vol."  He  depicted  the  universal  poverty  and  barbar- 
ism that  would  follow  from  such  notions  being  adopted. 

Kobert  Owen,  the  enthusiastic  and  practical  Socialist,  was 
not  successful  in  his  colony  of  New  Harmony  in  United  States. 
The  improvement  of  his  workmen's  material  interests  in  the 
New  Lanark  Mill  in  Scotland,  finally  proved  a  disappointment. 
(See  also  "Why  I  am  in  Favor  of  Socialism.") 


Purrington,  William  Archer.  (Lawyer  and  Author.) 

I  do  not  know  of  any  practicable  scheme  of  Socialism,  or 
of  any  satisfactory  definition  of  the  term  upon  which  Social- 
ists agree ;  an  accurate  definition  is  the  necessary  basis  of  in- 
telligent expression  of  opinion. 

Apparently,  Socialists  in  general  believe,  or  at  least  preach 
that  the  State  should  own  the  material  and  means  of  produc- 
tion, to  the  end  that  all  should  share  what  is  now  enjoyed  by 
the  few.  I  doubt  if  the  proposed  means  would  achieve  the 
desired  end.  At  present  the  United  States  Government  sup- 
plies us  with  postage  stamps.  The  stamps  will  not  stick. 

Socialism  will  be  practicable,  if  ever,  only  when 
"The  roughs,  as  we  call  them,  grown  loving  and  dutiful, 
Worship  the  true  and  the  good  and  the  beautiful. 

And  preying  no  longer,  as  tiger  and  vulture  do, 
Read  the  Atlantic, -as  persons  of  culture  do." 

That  day  is  far  distant,  and  even  when  it  comes  the  man  of 
brains  will  assert  his  individualism. 

—  18  — 


Screws,  William  Wallace.  (Editor  The  Montgomery  Advertiser.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  believe  in  conserva- 
tism. We  are  drifting  too  far  already  away  from  precepts 
and  principles  which  guided  us  safely  as  long  as  they  were 
adhered  to.  I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  believe  in 
individualism.  Each  man  in  the  community  should  do  some- 
thing for  it  instead  of  each  man  in  the  community  expecting 
the  community  to  do  something  for  him.  I  could  give  many 
other  reasons,  but  these  are  enough  to  convince  me  that  Social- 
ism engrafted  in  our  laws  would  be  dangerous  to  government 
and  societv. 


Burke,  John  Butler,  M.A.  (Author  and  Scientist.) 

My  sympathies  are  very  much  on  the  side  of  Socialism,  but 
intense  as  those  sympathies  may  be,  they  cannot  counteract 
the  convictions,  still  more  strong,  that  the  hope  of  its  realiza- 
tion is  futile.  A  lease  for  capital  is  all  I  can  plead  for  equiva- 
lent to  that  for  copyright. 

There  cannot  be  any  doubt,  in  my  mind  at  least,  that  So- 
cialism, that  is,  the  distribution  of  wealth  equally  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  individuals  composing  the  community,  desirable  as 
this  might  be  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  equality  and 
fraternity,  is  yet  at  variance  with  the  principles  of  freedom  and 
of  justice.  And  unjust  as  the  existing  system  may  be  in  giving 
an  unequal  start  in  life  to  individuals,  to  insist  that  those  who 
work  effectively  and  those  who  do  not,  should  share  equally 
the  benefits  of  their  combined  labors  is  surely  more  iniquitous 
still.  Nay,  more,  that  the  individual  should  not  possess  the 
power  to  accumulate  and  dispose  of  the  fruits  of  his  own  work, 
is  perhaps  still  more  at  variance  with  the  true  principles  of 
liberty. 

A  Socialistic  state,  however  perfect  ideally,  to  commence 
with,  would  be  in  an  unsteady  state  of  equilibrium,  and  the 
inequalities  with  which  Nature,  as  distinct  from  man,  has  en- 
dowed us,  would,  I  fear,  sooner  or  later,  disturb  that  unstable 
state  and  bring  things  back  to  the  condition  where  only  the 
struggle  for  power  and  its  consequent  supremacy  would  pre- 
vail, through  the  rule  of  the  strong  in  character  and  intellect. 

—  19  — 


Hence,  heredity  as  a  gift  or  privation  of  Nature,  like  wealth 
and  penury  in  the  existing  state  of  things,  prevents  the  ideal 
of  equality  otherwise  desirable.  Such  being  inevitable,  the 
accumulated  effects  of  industry  and  talent  will  ever  seek  and 
obtain  protection  from  the  hands  of  the  fortunate  and  the 
strong. 

A  lease  of  the  rights  of  property  and  capital  generally, 
equivalent  to  a  copyright,  for  works  of  genius  is  all  I  ever  hope 
for  in  the  interests  of  humanity,  so  that  with  the  lapse  of  time 
wealth  might  be  redistributed  broadcast  for  the  benefit  of  the 
State  and  mankind. 


)^          Hastings,  William  Granger.  (Lawyer.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  like  Comte,  I  am  unable 
to  accept  the  teachings  of  "any  of  the  senseless  sects  who  at- 
tack those  bases  of  the  State,  property  and  the  family."     If 
we  are  to  have  States,  we  must  have  families.     At  best,  if  wTe 
are  to  have  anything  like  our  present  existing  States.     If  we 
_  are  to  have  families,  we  must  have  property,  and  private  prop^ 
-i-rty  if  thry  are  to  IH>  private  .families.     It  is  as  certain  as  that 
we  must  have  public  property  if  we  arc  to  have  any  State. 


Jefferys,  Upton  S.  (Editor,  Post-Telegram,  Camden,  N.  J.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  think  that  in  the  final 
analysis  it  palsies  individual  initiative,  attempting  to  set  aside 
nature's  law  of  competition  and  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  1 
cannot  agree  with  the  proposition  that  Socialism  is  a  practical 
panacea  for  industrial  and  economic  conditions  that  have  exist- 
ed since  man  began  to  acquire  property.  While  human  nature 
remaias  «s-"it  ispl  question  whether  it  is^possIRle  to~~success- 
fully  apply  Socialism"foState  and  na/ETon. 


Beard,  Daniel  Carter.  (Author  and  Artist.) 

I  do  not  believe  in  Socialism  because  I  am  an  individualist. 
1  think  that  the  old  American  idea  is  broad  enough  to  admit 

—  20  — 


of  all  the  necessary  reforms  without  reverting  to  the  Social- 
ism of  Marx.  Both  Socialism  and  Anarchy  are  off-springs  of 
monarchial  forms  of  government  evolved  by  people  under  the 
tyranny  class  and  official  oppression. 

As  long  as  the  opportunities  in  this  country  were  free  to 
all,  neither  the  seed  of  Socialism  nor  of  Anarchy  could  take 
root,  but  when  the  opportunities  were  absorbed  by  a  few,  it 
produced  a  condition  similar  to  that  of  a  monarchal  form  of 
government,  and  the  seed  of  these  exotic  plants,  Socialism  and 
Anarchy,  both  found  a  soil  suited  to  their  growth. 

There  is  nothing  the  matter  with  our  form  of  government. 
It  has  produced  the  greatest  success  the  world  has  ever  wit- 
nessed, has  developed  a  manhood,  a  self-reliance  and  a  self- 
respect  to  be  found  on  no  place  else  on  the  face  of  the  earth, 
and  I  see  no  reason  why  we  should  change  that  form  of  gov- 
ernment, because  some  people  have  monopolized  the  opportu- 
nity for  labor  and  produced  an  unsatisfactory  condition  eco- 
nomically. There  is  but  one  opportunity  to  labor,  and  that  is 
the  land.  We  can  free  the  land  without  changing  our  form  of 
government,  by  simply  taxing  it  to  its  full  rental  value,  and 
doing  away  with  all  other  forms  of  taxation.  This  will  imme- 
diately take  the  burden  off  of  labor,  and  while  not  reducing 
our  present  millionaires  to  the  ranks  of  plain,  honest  men,  it 
will  effectually  prevent  the  growth  of  any  more  millionaire 
monstrosities.  (See  also  "Why  I  am  in  Favor  of  Socialism.") 


Ladd,  Horatio  Oliver.  (Clergyman,  Author  and  Educator.) 

I  do  not  favor  Socialism  because  it  is  an  effort  to  reform 
society  against  the  nature  of  man. 

Xo  man  is  created  equal  to  another,  or  every  other  man. 
He  is  an  individual  who  makes  his  place  in  the  world  by  his 
special  individual  traits  and  powers.  By  these  he  uses  the 
powers  of  others,  and  material  and  moral  instruments  and 
forces  around  him  to  accomplish  his  ends.  He  concedes  to 
others  what  he  cannot  or  does  not  wish  to  hold  or  acquire  for 
himself  in  the  influence  and  possessions  of  this  life. 

The  inequality  of  man  in  this  world  is  everywhere  mani- 
fest. The  advantages  won  in  this  life  are  the  result  of  effort 

—  21  — 


and  character,  not  of  any  distribution  based  upon  the  principle 
of  equality  of  man. 

The  differences  in  man's  condition,  make  the  interest  and 
the  incitements  of  life.  Collectivism  is  an  absurd  theory  of 
distribution  of  the  good  of  life,  because  it  cannot  preserve  equal 
conditions,  even  in  one  generation.  The  weak,  the  lame  and 
the  lazy  must  fall  behind  the  strong,  the  able,  the  ambitious. 
The  apples  on  a  tree  are  of  different  sizes,  and  soundness,  be- 
cause of  the  vigor  of  the  buds,  leaves,  branches  and  location 
which  have  contributed  to  their  growth.  So  it  is  in  all  Nature, 
and  in  man. 

The  prizes  of  life  belong  to  those  who  win  them  by  merit 
of  their  powers,  their  diligence  and  their  effort. 

A  common  opportunity  is  the  highest  condition  Nature 
and  society  can  offer  to  the  individual. 

Life  is  rich  in  and  through  its  varieties.  Religion  and 
common  sense  stand  for  these  principles  of  individualism  in  the 
development  and  conduct  of  human  life  and  government. 


XLevermore,  Charles  Herbert.  (Educator  and  Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  believe  that  any  plan 
thus  far  proposed  for  the  reorganization  of  society  upon  a  So- 
cialist basis  would  result  in  a  tyranny  of  a  majority,  or  of  a 
bureaucratic  clique  or  "ring,"  representing  that  majority, 
which  would  be  meaner  and  more  unendurable  than  any  cor- 
poration-ridden party-machine  or  any  Tammany  Hall  that  we 
have  ever  known.  (See  also  "Why  I  Am  in  Favor  of  So- 
cialism.") 


Bell,  Mackenzie.   (Poet,  Critic  and  Lecturer.) 

Though  a  collectivist  I  am  not  a  Socialist  in  the  Marxian 
sense,  because  I  think  the  private  ownership  of  capital  has 
never  until  now,  had  a  fair  chance  in  the  work  of  civilization. 
Throughout  the  world  the  people  are  dimly  awaking  to  insist 
that  property  has  its  duties  as  well  as  its  rights,  and  to  insist 
likewise  that  property  pays  its  due  toll  to  the  commonwealth. 

_  22  — 


Binney,  Charles  Chauncey.   (Lawyer  and  Author.) 

I  cannot  pretend  to  much  familiarity  with  Socialist  writ- 
ings, but  I  have  read  with  some  care  the  platform  of  the  So- 
cialist Party  for  the  recent  election.  Some  few  of  the  planks 
have  nothing  to  do  with  Socialism  in  itself,  and  some  (that  in 
regard  to  child  labor,  for  instance)  express  the  views  of  men 
of  all  parties;  but  the  distinctively  Socialist  part  of  the  plat- 
form impressed  me  as  co-operation  run  mad.  People  seemed 
to  be  regarded  as  masses  only,  not  as  individuals,  although  the/ 
individualist  feeling  is  one  of  the  strongest  in  human  nature, 
and  is  of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  progress  of  civilization. 

If  a  Socialist  administration  of  government  be  possible  as 
a  permanent  institution  (which  I  doubt)  it  would  be  impos- 
sible under  the  conditions  demanded  by  this  platform,  because 
no  man's  life  or  property  (if  any  individual  property  be  per- 
mitted) would  be  safe  under  it.  For  instance,  the  legislative 
power  is  to  be  vested  in  a  Congress  and  legislatures  composed 
of  one  chamber  only,  subject  to  no  veto  and  controlled  by  no 
constitution,  for  the  courts  are  to  be  forbidden  to  question  the 
constitutionality  of  laws.  This  would  make  the  legislature  all- 
powerful,  but  the  fact  that  no  one  branch  of  the  government 
is  all-powerful  is  an  important  guarantee  of  our  present  liber- 
ties. Worse  than  this,  although  the  experience  of  ages  has 
shown  that  the  greatest  safeguard  of  liberty  is  the  administra- 
tion of  law  by  an  independent  and  fearless  judiciary — that  is, 
by  judges  who  cannot  be  dismissed  except  for  official  wrong- 
doing, and  who  therefore  are  not  merely  free  to  do  right  in 
every  case,  but  have  the  strongest  incentives  to  do  so — yet  the 
platform  proposes  to  destroy  judicial  tenure  during  good  be- 
havior wherever  it  exists,  and  to  cause  all  judges  to  be  elected 
for  short  terms.  If  you  ask  any  man  of  intelligence,  who  wants 
only  justice,  whether  he  would  feel  more  sure  of  a  just  decision 
in  a  United  States  Court  before  a  judge  holding  office  during 
good  behavior,  or  in  a  State  Court,  before  a  judge  elected  by 
the  voters  of  a  political  party  for  a  short  term  only,  I  am  confi- 
dent that  he  would  express  much  greater  confidence  in  the 
former. 

The  Socialist  platform  asserts  that  the  "capitalist  class" 
controls  the  judiciary.  This  broad  assertion  is  ridiculously 
false.  What  is  true  is  that  the  judiciary  is  not  composed  of 

—  23  — 


Socialists,  that  the  judges  are  as  yet  unwilling  to  disregard 
the  law,  and  to  decide  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  So- 
cialists. If,  however,  the  " capitalist  class"  sought  to  control 
the  judiciary,  it  could  do  so  much  more  easily  in  the  case  of 
judges  elected  for  short  terms  than  in  that  of  judges  holding 
office  during  good  behavior.  Evidently  the  Socialists  want 
a  chance  to  "control"  the  judiciary  themselves,  whereas  what 
the  country  needs  is  a  judiciary  uncontrolled  by  any  class,  cap- 
italist or  Socialist. 

The  platform  declares  for  collective  ownership  of  all  rail- 
roads, telegraph  and  telephone  lines,  etc.  The  word  "confis 
cation"  is  avoided,  but  confiscation  must  be  intended,  for 
surely  the  Socialists  do  not  wish  to  enrich  the  "capitalist 
class"  by  buying  out  their  interests  in  public  s^rfice  corpora- 
tions at  a  fair  valuation.  \/ 

I  could  criticise  the  Socialist  platform  in  many  other  re- 
spects, especially  the  tone  of  violence  and  hatred  that  pervades 
it.  There  is  not  a  suggestion  of  Christianity  about  it.  I  shall 
conclude,  however,  by  stating  my  OAvn  experience  of  local  gov- 
ernment under  the  Socialist  Party.  Being  in  ill  health  last 
winter,  I  stayed  at  Bordighera  in  Italy.  The  Socialists  con- 
trolled the  to\vn  government,  and  wrere  anxious  to  continue  in 
office,  and  therefore  not  to  offend  the  rank  and  file  of  their 
party.  The  drunkenness  and  noise  at  night  were  often  intol- 
erable, but  all  protests  were  useless,  as  the  drinkers  and  shout- 
ers  had  votes,  and  the  foreign  visitors  had  none.  Gambling 
was  carried  on  as  openly  as  at  Monte  Carlo,  without  any  re- 
gard to  the  well-being  of  the  community.  After  this  slight  ex- 
perience, I  was  able  to  understand  better  what  took  place  un- 
der the  Socialist  commune  of  Paris  in  1871 ,  which  I  am  old 
enough  to  remember  well. 


Wilson,  Alonzo  Edes.  (Editor  and  Lecturer.) 

There  are  many  good  things  about  the  theory  of  Social- 
ism, but  I  do  not  believe  in  the  remedy  as  proposed  through 
the  Socialist  Party.  The  battle  can  never  be  won  that  way. 
1  also  believe  that  our  hardest  fight  and  the  first  thing  to 
be  done  is  the  killing  of  our  greatest  common  enemy,  the  liquor 

—  24  — 


traffic  and  the  business  of  drunkard  making,  by  the  Govern- 
ment. The  settlement  of  this  problem  will  solve  many  of  our 
ills  and  then  we  can  take  up  some  of  these  other  questions. 


Russell,  Isaac  Franklin,  LL.,  D.C.L.  (Chief  Justice  of  the  Court 
^«L  of  Special  Sessions  of  the  City  of  New  York.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  of  its  erroneous  atti- 
tude to  labor.  Labor  is  not  a  thing  to  be  avoided,  but  rather 
to  be  welcomed  and  encouraged.  The  only  real  happiness  we 
ever  experience  in  this  world  is  the  intelligent  exercise  of  our 
Ja^ctities?  A  perpetual  motion  machine  or  some  fanciful  device 
for  saving  us  from  labor,  so  far  from  being  a  blessing,  would 
paralyze  our  noblest  powers. 

I  charge  Socialism  with  economic  error  and  heresy  for  its 
attacks  on  capital  and  capitalists.  Capital  is  indispensable  to 
enterprise.  It  is  the  source  and  mainspring  of  wages.  The 
laborer  cannot  pay  himself  his  wages  out  of  the  finished  prod- 
uct of  his  toil,  else  he  would  have  no  quarrel  with  his  master. 
Even  public-credit,  on  which  we  are  building  the  Panama  Ca- 
na~i~~and  our  city  schools,  rests  on  visible  resources  in  lands, 
franchises  and  personal  property. 

I  charge  Socialism  with  economic  error  in  advocating  a 
rate  of  wages  determined  by  arbitrary  authority,  irrespective 
of  demand  and  supply.  No  producer  of  merchandise  for  any 
appreciable  length  of  time  can  continue  to  pay  more  than  the 
market  rate  of  wages  and  keep  out  of  bankruptcy. 

The  manhood  wage — a  plan  by  which  we  accord  to  each 
laborer  enoji^h  money  to  support  himself,  his  wife  and  as  many 
children"  as  God  sends  to  his  home — is  a  delusion  and  a  snare. 
It  directly  encourages  improvidence  and  stimulates  the  growth 
of  population  by  diverting  nature's  stern  but  benignant  disci- 
pline from  the  unworthy  to  the  worthy.  It  paralyzes  thrift 
and  temperance,  and  puts  a  premium  on  recklessness  and 
vicious  self-indulgence. 

I  charge  Socialism  with  fundamental  error  in  preaching 
the  doctrine  of  human  equality.  Nature  abhors  equality.  Men 
vary  infinitely,  from  the  meanest  degenerates  to  the  tallest  of 
the  sons  of  God.  They  can  be  equal  only  before  the  law,  or  in 

—  25  — 


the  eye  of  the  law,  or  as  suppliants  for  justice.  Intellectually 
we  need  patricians  and  noblemen  to  encourage  us  by  precept 
and  example  and  point  out  the  path  of  progress  to  better 
things.  A  dollar  a  day,  or  one  thousand  dollars  a  day,  never 
will  remunerate  men  like  Edison  and  Harriman  for  their  serv- 
ices to  a  world  of  workers. 

Socialism  trifles  with  the  principles  that  underlie  the  insti- 
tution of  property.  Even  animal  and  sub-human  ethics  regard 
the  right  of  the  individual  to  his  accumulated  store  and  the 
home  he  has  builded. 

The  attitude  of  Socialists  toward  the  courts  of  law  is  un- 
democratic. In  America  we  must  reverence  the  law.  It  is 
our  only  hope.  To  teach  the  multitude  that  justice  is  bought 
and  sold  in  this  country  and  that  the  judgments  of  our  judicial 
tribunals  are  knocked  down  to  the  highest  bidder  is  to  accuse 
a  whole  nation  of  crime. 

Socialism  represses  individual  development.  It  substitutes 
for  self-direction  the  authority  of  the  many. 

But  it  is  in  constructive  Socialism  that  we  find  the  great- 
est peril  and  the  most  monumental  folly.  Utopias  innumerable 
have  been  conceived  by  the  heated  imagination  of  dreamers  of 
all  ages.  The  monotony  of  Utopia  would  be  maddening.  Xo 
moral  crisis  can  arise  in  a  perfect  society.  Charity  and  philan- 
thropy, sympathy,  courage  and  all  the  human  virtues  can  have 
no  play  in  such  a  spot. 

Competition  is  not  to  be  decried  as  vicious.  It  is  really  a 
benignant  principle.  It  is  the  supreme  divine  law.  To  com- 
pe£i{ion  among  employers  the  workman  looks  for  high  wages: 
n  competition  among  sellers  he  relies  to  buy  what  he  needs  at 
the  lowest  figure. 


Andrews,  Martin  Register.  (College  Professor  and  Editor.) 

The  machinery  of  government  which  the  Socialists  propose 
seems  to  me  likely  to  aggravate  the  very  evils  of  which  they 
justly  complain.  The  proposal  to  confiscate  the  homes  of  the 
farmers  and  work  the  former  owners  under  some  boss  chosen 
by  the  State,  as  I  heard  advocated  a  few  days  ago,  may  be  a 
blessing  to  the  brewers,  but  not  to  the  great  body  of  working- 
men.  (See  also  "Why  I  Am  in  Favor  of  Socialism.") 

—  26  — 


Allen,  Alfred.  (Playwright  and  Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  of  their  inhumanity  to- 
wards the  poor  millionaire.  In  spite  of  it  all,  they  are  our 
brothers. 


Owen,  Douglas.  (Author,  Barrister  and  Lecturer.) 

Until  Socialists  themselves  shall  have  come  to  some  sort  of 
an  agreement  as  to  the  aims  and  objects  of  the  Socialism  to  be 
adopted  as  their  creed,  how  can  one  formulate  one's  objections 
to  Socialism?  The  more  moderate  and  reasonable  of  its  advo- 
cates profess,  indeed,  indignation  and  abhorrence  at  the  views 
of  the  extremists,  and  to  reply  to  the  extremists  is  to  call  forth 
charges  of  gross  misrepresentation  on  the  part  of  the  more 
moderate.  But  broadly  stated,  what  Socialism  even  in  its 
more  moderate  form  appears  to  aim  at,  is  the  negation  and 
suppression  of  the  greatest  and  most  beneficent  law  of  nature 
—law  of  humanity — which  we  know  as  the  law  of  the  survival 
of  the  fittest.  On  this  supreme  law  depends,  and  always  has 
depended,  and  must  depend,  the  uplifting,  enlightenment  and, 
hi  the  end,  the  highest  welfare  of  mankind.  And  just  as  that 
which  is  good  for  the  hive  cannot  be  bad  for  the  bee,  so  must 
the  welfare  of  the  hive  depend  on  the  independent  effort  of 
each  individual  bee. 

The  mainspring  of  the  world's  upward  and  forward  prog- 
ress is  the  ambition  and  emulation  of  the  individual  worker 
the  slothful,  the  ill-qualified  and  the  weakling  being  left  be- 
hind; one  and  the  same  law,  beneficent  if  hard,  for  all  life 
upon  this  world,  whether  animate  or  inanimate.  The  Social- 
ists' aim  is  to  deprive  the  individual  of  stimulus  to  put  forth 
his  best  efforts  for  his  own  advancement  and  therefore  for  the 
benefit  of  the  human  hive. 

When  I  received  your  invitation  to  state  my  views  on  this 
subject,  I  chanced  to  be  reading  David  Hannay's  work,  "The 
Sea  Trader."  At  the  conclusion  he  deals  with  the  subject  of 
convoy,  under  which  all  ships,  fast  and  slow,  good  and  bad, 
were  compelled  to  voyage  under  armed  escort.  His  remarks 
on  the  consequences  of  the  system  are  so  apposite  that  I  quote 
them  here: 

—  27  — 


"The  necessity  for  keeping  together  imposed  a  restriction 
often  of  a  highly  injurious  kind,  on  the  best  appointed  vessels. 
Since  the  whole  must  be  kept  together,  it  followed  that  the  con- 
voy was  condemned  to  sail  at  the  rate  of  speed  of  the  slowest 
among  them.  A  quick  sailing  ship  lost  the  whole  advantage  of 
her  superiority.  She  could  neither  obtain  the  advantage  of 
being  early  in  the  market,  nor  make  prompt  arrangements  to 
unload  or  reload.  She  was  brought  down  to  the  level  of  the 
most  lumbering  tub.  Of  what  use  was  it  to  build  for  speed, 
to  be  alert,  to  seek  for  better  ways,  when  the  law  stood  over 
you,  fine  and  imprisonment  in  hand,  to  make  you  go  slow,  to 
force  you  to  follow  the  known  road!" 

Of  course,  it  meant  utter  stagnation  in  shipbuilding;  it 
was  death  to  advance  an  improvement.  The  Socialist,  in  his 
shortsighted  and  narrow  view,  aims  at  the  same  thing  over 
again,  on  a  universal  scale,  with  all  its  dire  and  retrograde  re- 
sults. He  would  reduce  the  well-found,  well-equipped  and 
speedy  vessel  to  the  level  of  the  most  lumbering  tub  in  the 
human  fleet. 


Painter,  Franklin  Verzelius  Newton.  (Author  and  College 

Professor.) 

If  Socialism  is  what  its  friends  say  it  is,  it  should  be  com- 
mended; if  it  is  what  its  enemies  say  it  is,  it  should  be  con- 
demned. 

In  developing  a  sense  of  social  obligation,  Socialism  ac- 
complishes a  fine  work;  but  in  expecting  a  thorough  human 
reformation  from  altered  social  conditions,  it  betrays  the 
weakness  of  illiterate  credulity. 

In  seeking  greater  justice  and  equality  in  economic  con- 
ditions, Socialism  rests  on  a  strong  moral  basis ;  but  in  seeking 
no  more  than  greater  material  ease  and  comfort,  it  betrays  the 
presence  of  mortality. 

In  demanding  individual  sacrifice  for  the  common  good, 
Socialism  emphasizes  an  important  duty;  but  in  totally  sub- 
merging the  individual  in  society,  it  is  guilty  of  an  ancient 
wrong. 

The  truths  of  Socialism  are  rapidly  finding  expression  in 

—  28  — 


life   and   government ;   its   errors   will   prove   its   ultimate   de- 
struction. 

The  fundamental  defect  of  Socialism  is  its  materialism ; 
for  there  is  that  in  man  which  transcends  food  and  raiment. 


Thayer,  William  Roscoe.  (Historian.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  have  seen  no  explana- 
tion by  any  of  its  various,  and  mutually  antagonistic  advocates, 
of  the  way  in  which  it  can  safeguard  the  individual;  The  pur- 
pose of  life  is  to  produce  individuals,  each  of  whom  shall  be 
trained  to  the  highest  efficiency — manual,  intellectual  and 
moral — of  which  he  is  capable.  Socialism,  having  only  the 
welfare  of  all  (an  abstraction)  in  view,  must  logically  slight 
or  suppress  the  individual.  So,  logically,  it  must  destroy  the 
family — the  unit  of  civilization — and  reduce  mankind  in  their 
sexual  relations  below  the  level  of  the  beasts.  "What  I  desire 
is  not  crazy  Nietzsche's  superman — individualism  run  mad — 
nor  Socialism  which  denies  the  individual. 


-v- 


Nevin,  Theodore  Williamson.   (Editor.) 


I  amoppjQsed-fco-^wialiMii  piinciipall^^ecansfi  of  its  im- 
practicability. Theoretically  it  is  beautiful,  but  until  human 
nature  changes  radically  from  what  it  is  at  present,  the  plan 
will  not  work  out  in  practice.  Go  into  any  of  the  small  So- 
cialistic societies,  see  the  petty  wrangling,  the  striving  for  dom- 
ination— bossing  by  the  stronger  leaders,  the  self-seeking;  ef- 
forts of  all,  weak  and  strong;  and  it  will  at  once  be  seen  that 
the  theory  is  not  a  success  there.  If  not  successful  in  these 
smaller  experiments,  how  can  it  be  expected  to  be  in  the  larger 
field  of  a  nation? 

My  fear  would  be  that  if  the  system  could  ever  be  fastened 
on  tlie  national  government  (which  I  consider  an  impossibil- 
ity) it  would  be  disastrous — it  would  take  away  ambition,  if 
would  have  a  blighting  effect  on  enterprise,  and  would  result 
in  the  production  of  the  most  intolerant  "bosses,"  great  and 

—  29  — 


small  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  The  resultant  slavery  of 
the  masses  would  be  shocking,  compared  with  which  the  most 
asserted,  so-called  slavery  under  our  modern  industrial  sys- 
tem would  be  the  perfection  of  freedom. 

After  all,  isn't  Socialism,  present  day  Socialism,  simply  an 
effort  of  those  that  have  not,  trying  to  get  a  share  of  the  pos- 
sessions of  those  that  have? 


Bigelow,  Edward  Fuller.   (Lecturer  and  Writer.) 

I  am  in  favor  of  Socialism  in  so  far  as  it  contains  many 
good  ideals,  and  am  against  it  in  so  far  as  the  methods  of  ob- 
taining those  ideals  are  non-existent,  indefinite  or  impracti- 
cable. Many  harangues  by  Socialist  orators  and  many  tracts. 
claiming  to  set  forth  Socialistic  doctrines  are  mostly  vague  with 
omission  of  all  practical  methods.  It  may  do  for  the  poet  to 
rave  about  sailing  away  to  the  moon,  but  if  the  poet  becomes 
politician  he  must  show  the  ship  and  explain  how  it  will  make 
the  journey. 


Post,  Louis  Freeland.  (Editor,  The  Public,  Chicago,  111.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  in  its  economic  program  because 
it  proposes  to  suppress  competition,  and  in  its  tactics  because 
it  stands  for  class  warfare.  As  to  competition,  I  do  not  believe 
that  it  can  be  suppressed  without  substituting  an  intolerable 
despotism,  and  I  do  believe  it  will  operate  fairly  if  divested 
of  the  law-created  monopolies  with  which  it  is  now  bedeviled. 
As  to  class  warfare,  I  regard  the  real  contest  as  a  contest  over 
economic  interests  and  moral  ideals,  which  neither  are  nor  can 
be  differentiated  by  any  lines  of  personal  class.  (See  also  "Why 
I  Am  in  Favor  of  Socialism.") 


Walker,  Albert  H.   (Lawyer  and  Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  it  is  contrary  to  na- 
ture.    In  nature,  progress  results  from  evolution;  and  evolu- 

—  30  — 


tion  results  from  fortuitous  differentiation  and  survival  of  the 
fittest.  Socialism  proposes  to  try  to  make  the  unfittest  sur- 
vive, at  the  expense  of  the  fittest.  That  also  is  the  proposition 
of  Christianity.  But  both  those  systems  are  contrary  to  nature 
in  that  respect. 


Tutt,  John  Calhoun.   (Writer.) 

Socialism  is  not  feasible.  It  is  a  myth  of  dreamy  minds. 
It  has  an  idealistic  atmosphere  and  is  attractive  to  those  who 
lag  in  the  struggle  of  life.  Its  worst  feature  is  that  it  deeeives 
the  people  who  conscientiously  seek  relief  in  it.  Its  leadership 
thrives  because  its  impracticability  prevents  the  experimental 
tests  that  would  expose  its  sophistry.  There  is  no  way  to  prove 
by  actual  demonstration  that  the  persuasive  gospel  or  philos- 
ophy of  the  men  who  lead  its  movements  is  a  mockery.  You 
can't  try  out  Socialism.  It  is  evasive.  No  people  ever  did  or 
ever  will  grasp  it.  There  is  no  equality  in  either  civilization 
or  barbarism.  The  men  most  conspicuous  in  the  Socialist 
movement  do  not  exemplify  equality.  You  find  Socialists 
among  the  most  destitute.  If  Socialism  is  a  legitimate  form 
of  government,  why  have  not  the  forces  of  government  evolved 
it  ?  The  age  of  experiment  has  long  since  passed.  We  have 
had  repetition  over  and  over  again,  but  no  materialization  of 
Socialism.  Government  is  purely  human,  and  until  there  is  a 
new  creation  there  will  never  be  anything  new  in  government. 


Arford,  Fremont.   (Editor,  Western  Trade  Journal,  Chicago.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  it  does  not  lead  to  any- 
thing practical  or  concrete.  The  theories  and  plans  of  the 
great  body  of  Socialists  are  largely  chimerical  and  do  not  ap- 
peal to  my  idea  of  bettering  the  conditions  of  which  they,  and 
myself  as  well,  complain.  To  accomplish  what  Socialism  is 
attempting  to  bring  about,  necessitates  a  revolution  of  all  that 
now  goes  to  make  up  human  nature,  and  nothing  short  of 
omnipotence  can  do  this. 

—  31  — 


Cavanaugh,  John,  C.S.C.  (President  University  of  Notre  Dame.) 

As  a  philosophy  Socialism  .is  hostile  to  organized  govern- 
ment Decause  organized  government  stands  for  restraint.  Re- 
straint is  necessary  wherever  people  live  together.  Socialism 
wants  a  so-called  liberty  which,  in  my  judgment,  is  license. 

Socialism  is  opposed  to  religion  for  the  same  reason.  Reli- 
gion teaches  man  to  be  patient  and  Socialism  can  thrive  only 
where  men  are  discontented. 

Socialism  is  opposed  to  the  home  because  husband  and 
father  in  the  nature  of  things  are  economically  dependent  upon 
employers,  and  it  is  characteristic  of  Socialists  that  they  wish 
to  flaunt  offence  in  the  face  of  employers. 

Individual  Socialists  will  deny  that  these  charges  against 
Socialism  are  true.  Such  individual  Socialists  are  sometimes 
honest,  a  fact  which  only  proves  that  they  don't  know  the 
inner  meaning  of  Socialism.  Socialistic  papers  like  the  Xew 
York  Call  make  no  pretense  of  concealing  the  true  meaning  of 
the  Socialist  philosophy. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  vast  majority  of  so-called  Social- 
ists think  it  is  merely  a  political  plan  that  concerns  only  the 
question  of  capital  and  labor  and  government  ownership. 

Even  as  a  matter  of  political  policy  Socialism  is  not  con- 
vincing ;  it  could  not  cure  the  ills  of  society  which  are  due  to 
inequalities  of  talent,  strength,  wisdom  and  industry  rather 
than  to  political  policies. 

I  am  not  willing  to  close  this  brief  statement  without  add- 
ing that  capitalists  should  take  care  so  to  deal  with  labor  as 
to  deprive  agitators  of  all  excuse  and  valid  argument  for  So- 
cialism, while  to  the  working  man  I  say:  "Be  wise,  thrifty, 
virtuous  and  industrious  so  that  you  may  improve  your  condi- 
tion." I  say  with  equal  earnestness  to  the  capitalist:  "Stop 
making  Socialists.  Treat  your  laboring  people  like  equals 
rather  than  inferiors,  and  as  brothers,  not  as  aliens. ' ' 


Barr,  Granville  Walter.  (Writer.) 

The  accomplishment  of  ethics  by  the  enactment  of  laws 
always  fails,  and  always  will  fail,  except  in  those  cases  where 
there  is  a  strong  trend  of  public  opinion  to  the  same  end. 

—  32  — 


There  are  places  where  murder  is  not  punished,  and  other 
places  where  only  certain  forms  of  murder  are  punished;  as 
there  are  places  where  the  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors  and  gamb- 
ling are  utterly  prevented  by  the  punishment  of  all  who  com- 
mit these  acts  contrary  to  law.  Socialism  is  a  program  of  law 
far  ahead  of  the  public  opinion  of  today  in  this  country.  There- 
fore it  cannot  effect  itself  here  and  now.  There  may  be  in  the 
future  a  time  and  place  where  it  will  be  effective,  and  then  its 
laws  will  be  beneficent. 

But  only  under  the  conditions  stated,  will  it  be  harmless. 
The  greatest  evil  in  America  today  is  the  non-enforcement  of 
laws.  Any  law  not  enforced,  because  contrary  to  public  opin- 
ion in  the  governmental  unit  involved,  becomes  malevolent  in 
its  effects.  In  one  city  whose  people  believe  liquors  should  be 
sold,  saloons  flourish  in  spite  of  a  State  statute  prohibiting 
them,  because  conviction  of  saloon  keepers  is  impossible  in  that 
bailiwick;  thirty  years  of  this  state  of  affairs  has  produced  a 
generation  of  young  men  who  firmly  believe  that  laws  are 
made  to  be  enforced  or  disregarded  at  will — who  are  germin- 
ating the  seeds  of  anarchy.  To  enact  a  mass  of  law  which  can- 
not be  enforced  until  the  millennium  is  nearer  its  dawn,  is  to 
weaken  all  law.  Hence,  Socialism  as  a  political  factor  is  malev- 
olent— as  a  propaganda,  it  is  of  course  beneficent  and  to  be  en- 
couraged academically,  exactly  as  one  should  encourage  the 
growth  of  Methodism  or  Presbyterianism  while  keeping  them 
both  out  of  political  matters.  Socialism  seems  determined  to 
intrude  into  politics — is  essentially  political,  indeed — and  its 
most  active  writers  sneer  at  the  American  constitution  and 
institutions  while  they  have  nothing  practicable  to  substitute 
except  the  Golden  Rule — which  excellent  rule  of  action  never 
has  been  enforced  upon  any  nation,  nor  any  large  group  of 
people,  and  which  cannot  be  enforced  soon.  When  it  can  be 
enforced,  Socialism  will  have  arrived.  In  the  meantime,  hu- 
man nature  must  be  made  over — God  speed  the  day! 


White,  William  Allen.  (Editor  and  Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  believe  that  it  at- 
tempts to  do  by  legislative  enactment,  what  must  come  through 

—  33  — 


an  evolutionary  process.  I  believe  that  we  are  now  ready  for 
a  long  evolutionary  jump,  but  not  so  far  forward  as  som'e  of 
our  Socialist  brethren  would  like  to  jump. 

I  desire  to  go  as  far  toward  human  justice  and  good  will 
toward  men,  as  anyone,  but  I  do  not  feel  that  we  should  start 
and  stop,  because  we  are  not  ready  to  go  the  whole  distance. 
I  would  start  and  go  but  one  day's  journey  at  a  time. 


Crowell,  John  Franklin.  (Economist.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism- 
First  :    Because  it  fails  to  provide  for  the  requisites  of 
ogress,  and  this  threatens  to  cause  a  stationary  civilization. 
Second:   Because  it  seems  to  me  to  misplace  the  emphasis 
by  putting  the  material  before  the  spiritual  in  human  happi- 
ness. 

Third :  Because  it  is  anti-national  in  its  attitude  toward 
liberty  and  self-government.  By  means  of  national  citizen- 
ship modernity  has  gained  most  of  its  rights  and  privileges. 
To  show  utter  contempt  for  the  national  flag,  by  referring  to 
it  as  "an  old  rag,"  exhibits  a  personal  quality  wholly  incom- 
patible with  true  human  brotherhood. 


Wilcox,  Lute.  (Editor,  Field  and  Farm,  Denver,  Colo.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  upon  the  broad  ground  that  AVC 
already  have  too  many  loafers  in  America  for  the  future  good 
of  the  nation.  All  mankind  is  Socialistic  to  a  certain  degree. 
The  most  of  us  are  inclined  to  double  shoot  the  turn  and  ride 
a  free  horse  to  death.  We  make  Socialism  a  sort  of  excuse  to 
shift  responsibilities  that  certainly  belong  to  each  and  every 
individual  living  under  a  democratic  form  of  government.  We 
are  always  dodging  the  little  duties  that  go  to  make  up  the 
ground  work  of  life.  Socialism  seems  to  inculcate  that  spirit 
of  inactivity  which  might  be  more  properly  called  loaferism 
and  no  country  can  become  great  with  such  a  dominant  spirit 
prevailing  among  its  people. 

—  34  — 


Heald,  G.  H.   (Editor,  Life  and  Health.) 

I  am  both  in  favor  of,  and  opposed  to  Socialism,  because 
Socialism  means  very  many  different  things.  As  one  man 
said:  Christian  Socialism  means  ''all  mine  is  yours,"  and  the 
other  kind  means,  "'all  yours  is  mine." 

Our  present  government  is  partially  Socialistic ;-  our  pub- 
lic schools,  our  public  roads,  our  postoffice  department,  and 
more  and  more  of  our  public  work  is  becoming  socialized. 

Another  form  of  Socialism,  although  not  political,  is  the 
co-operative  bodies  seen  in  the  garden  suburbs  of  the  cities  of 
England,  and  the  co-operative  stores,  etc. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  cry  against  capital  is  not  well 
taken.  Turn  ten  thousand  anti-capitalists  into  a  new  unde- 
veloped country  and  let  them  develop  it !  The  first  thing  they 
will  require  is  capital.  And  after  a  while  if  a  few  of  the  more 
energetic  ones  begin  to  do  things  it  will  be  because  they  have 
accumulated  a  little  capital.  However,  I  can  understand  that 
this  capital  might  be  held  co-operatively  by  the  laborers  as  it 
is  in  some  institutions,  rather  than  by  a  few.  But  the  pres- 
ent conditions  which  get  a  monopoly  of  franchise  on  public 
utilities  or  a  monopoly  of  natural  wealth  of  the  country, 
whether  of  mines  or  forests  or  water  power,  is  all  wrong.  We 
need  more  of  public  ownership,  less  of  larger  corporations  fat- 
tening their  stockholders  by  squeezing  the  prices  to  the  highest 
limit  and  wages  to  the  lowest  limit. 


Kelly,  Robert  Lincoln.  (President,  Earlham  College.) 

I  feel  that  the  tendency  in  our  country  is  toward  a  more 
Socialistic  form  of  government  and  with  this  movement  I  am 
in  entire  sympathy.  This  means,  however,  that  these  tenden- 
cies will  be  incorporated  in  our  government  by  the  process  of 
evolution  and  not  by  that  of  revolution.  In  other  words,  that 
we  will  hammer  these  questions  out  one  at  a  time  and  adopt 
them  only  as  they  are  proven  to  be  practicable  in  every-day 
experience.  Since  Socialism  presumably  stands  for  an  exten- 
sive program  which  is  to  be  adopted  in  toto  and  without  due 
deliberation  and  tentative  experience  I  cannot  become  a  mem- 
ber of  that  party.  Let  those  who  wish  to  advocate  the  cause 


in  this  wholesale  way,  have  every  possible  opportunity  of  do- 
ing so,  but  reaognize  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  forms  of  gov- 
ernment and  even  public  opinion  are  changed  very  slowly 
with  the  process  of  the  sun. 


Ladd,  George  Trumbull.  (University  Professor.) 

1  believe  in  the  spiritual  unity  of  the  race,  and  in  the  duty 
of  nations  and  individuals  to  treat  each  other  like  brothers,  and 
sons  of  a  common  father.  I  detest  all  class  hatred  and  all  ar- 
rangements, political  and  social,  for  securing  and  promoting 
class  interests  at  the  expense  of  the  public  welfare.  I  am  the 
enemy  of  all  systems  of  "bossism,"  or  monopoly,  or  control  by 
other  than  natural  laws  and  moral  principles,  of  the  oppor- 
tunities of  the  individual  to  labor,  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  labor, 
and  to  develop  himself  and  help  others.  Thus  far  I  am  a  So- 
cialist. 

I  do  not  believe,  however,  in  any  of  the  definite  schemes 
for  equalizing  the  rewards  of  labor,  irrespective  of  the  merits 
of  the  laborer  and  the  excellence. of  his  work.  I  do  not  believe 
in  communism,  either  in  the  sharing  by  compulsion,  of  goods; 
and  certainly  not,  in  the  sharing  of  the  privileges  of  the  fam- 
ily life.  Nor  do  I  think  that  the  control  of  government, 
whether  of  city,  State  or  Nation,  by  any  Socialistic  Party, 
would,  in  the  large  and  the  long  run,  improve  matters.  I  fear 
it  would  make  bad  matters  even  worse.  The  only  way  to  im- 
prove society  is  to  make  the  men  and  women  who  compose 
society,  intellectually,  morally,  and  religiously,  better  men  and 
better  women.  I  want,  first  of  all,  to  be  improved  in  all  these 
ways  myself;  and  next,  to  help  the  next  fellow  to  improve 
himself. 


Adams,  Thomas  Sewall.  (Professor  Political  Economy.) 

If  Socialism  means  primarily  the  ownership  and  operation 
by  the  State  of  the  principal  industries,  I  am  opposed  to  it 
because  a  long  experience  in  State  and  public  work  convinces 
me  that  public  work  is,  comparatively  speaking,  inefficient 

—  36  — 


work.  The  cause  of  this  inefficiency  lies  deep  in  the  nature  of 
democratic  government  and  will  never,  I  think,  be  removed 
The  individual  public  servant  is  neither  lazy  nor  inferior,  but 
the  conditions  of  his  work  make  it  impossible  to  get  the  same 
results  as  he  could  in  private  employment.  The  spirit  of  public 
work  is  more  equitable.  Greater  consideration  is  given  to  the 
humane  factors.  More  of  this  spirit  will  have  to  be  injected 
into  private  industry.  The  result  will  be  not  public  industry, 
but  private  industry  animated  by  a  new  ideal  and  conducted 
under  the  guardianship  of  the  State  rather  than  by  the  State. 
Industrial  life  is  not  simple;  it  is  very  complex,  and  no  simple 
solution  is  to  be  looked  for.  The  quasi-public  industry  man- 
aged by  private  individuals,  deeply  impressed  with  the  feel- 
ing of  their  public  trusteeship,  is  the  ultimate  ideal.  With  the 
deeper  and  better  spirit  of  Socialism  I  am  altogether  in  accord. 
Most  Socialists  think  that  the  strength  of  the  movement  lies 
in  their  tactics;  their  specific  provisions  for  government  own- 
ership ;  their  philosophical  doctrines ;  but  the  contrary  is  the 
truth  and  the  one  enduring  thing  in  Socialism  is  the  religious 
zeal  and  high  ideals  of  its  best  exponents. 


Linn,  Walter  R.  (Editor  Harrisburg  Telegraph,  Harrisburg,  Pa.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  the  progress  of  the 
world  has  been  made  under  individualism.  Any  system  which 
has  a  tendency  to  discourage  or  repress  personal  initiative  is 

-rein  which  can  produce  no  good  to  the  country. 


Terhune,  William  Lewis.  (Publisher.) 

Socialism,  to  my  mind,  means  the  overthrow  of  all  the 
advancements  of  the  past  one  hundred  years  or  more.  The 
man  of  brains  and  energy  would  stand  but  little  show  or  en- 
couragement under  a  government  controlled  by  Socialism  or 
Socialistic  ideas.  I  believe  that,  the  man  who  is  capable  of 
making  his  way  in  this  world,  is  smart  and  energetic  enougli 
to  build  up  a  business  and  with  it  a  fortune,  is  entitled  to  all 


lie  can  possess  through  honest  efforts.  I  do  not  believe  in 
government  ownership  of  public  utilities,  but  I  do  believe  in 
a  controlling  power  of  the  government  to  in  some  way  super- 
vise these  corporations  so  they  will  be  obliged  to  keep  in  the 
path  of  honesty  in  all  their  transactions  with  the  public.  Indi- 
vidual freedom  is  the  watchword  of  our  great  country.  When 
we  lose  that,  we  lose  ourselves. 


YsScheffauer,  Herman.   (Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  theoretical  Socialism  wherever  it  threatens 
to  interfere  with  the  full  and  unhampered  development  of  the 
individual  or  to  lower  his  worth.  Being  a  mass  philosophy,  So- 
cialism must  logically  strive  to  sacrifice  the  individual  to  that 
mass.  I  hold  that  it  is  only  through  the  channels  of  a  free, 
noble,  self-restrained  individualism  that  man  may  naturally 
attain  to  his  supreme  development  in  happiness,  culture  and 
power. 

Theoretical  Socialism  is  a  splendid  fallacy  that  shines  like 
a  truth  when  contemplated  beneath  the  skies  of  the  future  al- 
ready reddened  by  the  sanguine  color  of  the  creed.  But  it  is 
a  fallacy  based  upon  another  fallacy,  that  of  the  virtue  in  the 
sovereign  mass  or  democracy,  which  in  turn  is  based  upon  cer- 
tain fallacies  of  Christianity. 

These  systems  of  the  multitude  amount  to  mob  rule,  and 
will  never  evolve  the  highest  type  of  men — the  intellectual  and 
moral  samurai  of  whom  H.  C.  Wells  has  written,  the  rulers  by 
nature,  training  and  fitness,  the  men  who,  in  Nietzsche's 
phrase,  are  to  surpass  men. 

In  practical  matters  Socialism  may  be  said  to  be  already 
operative,  and  largely  operative  for  good.  It  is  correcting 
many  ancient  evils  and  bringing  a  certain  degree  of  order  and 
balance  into  the  world.  That  is  its  chief  value — an  industrial 
and  economic  one.  It  is  a  means  and  not  an  end.  For  in  the 
last  analysis  of  human  things  it  will  be  undone  by  that  iron 
fiat  which  decrees  that  every  man  must  be  an  end  in  himself 
and  unto  himself. 


Gaines,  Clement  Carrington.  (President  Eastman  College.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  believe  that  Socialism 
is  an  impracticable  form  of  governmental  administration,  and 
therefore  must,  if  it  should  ever  come  to  power,  fail  as  a  sys- 
tem of  government.  In  support  of  this  view  I  suggest  the  fol- 
lowing considerations : 

First :  A  free  democratic  government,  a  government  by  the 
people^n  any  form,  must  necessarily  be  controlled  by  parties. 

Second :  Parties  are  held  together  by  the  interests  of  the 
organization.  These  interests  in  the  end  are  opposed  to  the 
interests  of  the  people  in  that  any  party  must  support  itself 
by  what  its  organizers  and  promoters  can  get  out  of  the  people, 
which  is  another  way  of  saying  that  every  party  is  held  to- 
gether by  the  cohesion  of  public  plunder,  the  private  interests 
of  its  organizers.  That  policy  is  always  most  popular  with  the 
party  in  power  which  promises  most  profit  to  its  leaders.  The 
leaders  are  controlled  by  the  policy  which  seems  to  serve  their 
interests  best,  and  not  by  the  principles  of  righteousness  or 
altruism. 

Third:  Hence  in  the  administration  of  Government  by  a 
party  the  success  and  policy  of  the  party  must  dominate  its 
action  rather  than  the  interests  of  the  people  whom  the  party 
would  govern,  because  this  success  is  the  thing  most  neces- 
sary to  the  continuance  of  the  party  in  power.  The  effort  to 
succeed  leads  to  corruption  notwithstanding  the  apparent  pur- 
ity of  its  principles  or  promises  of  its  platform. 

Conclusion:  Since  the  three  principles  enunciated  seem  to 
be  the  fundamental  law  of  party  government,  and  since  the 
principles  of  Socialism  are  in  contravention  of  this  funda- 
mental law,  it  is  believed  that  Socialism  cannot  permanently 
succeed  as  a  method  of  party  government.  It  is  further  be- 
lieved that  the  principles  of  Socialism  are  in  contravention 
of  the  natural  law  that  no  creature  may  advance  in  any  direc- 
tion except  by  the  law  of  competition  of  all  its  vital  forces, 
principles,  and  powers.  Mr.  Darwin  calls  this  "the  law  of 
natural  selection  and  survival  of  the  fittest,"  and  says  con- 
clusively that  this  natural  law  governs  and  directs  the  develop- 
ment and  progress  of  the  material  world,  and  that  it  applies 
with  equal  force  to  man's  nature,  and  to  his  progress  as  a 
member  of  the  moral,  social,  industrial,  and  political  world. 

—  39  — 


<^Leckie,  A.  S.   (Editor,  The  Joliet  Herald,  Joliet,  111.) 

We  may  oppose  or  improve  human  legislative  enactments, 
but  not  natural  laws.  Socialism,  in  its  logical  perfection,  would 
attempt  this. 

The  species  improves  and  advances  only  through  the  strug- 
gle for  existence  (or  preferment).  The  law  of  the  survival  or 
supremacy  of  the  fittest  is  immutable  in  natural  conditions. 
Remove  from  the  petted  squirrels  the  necessity  of  providing 
their  winter's  food,  and  they  become  unable  to  do  so  when  the 
necessity  again  arises. 

Ambition  in  competition,  carried  if  you  will,  to  the  ex- 
treme of  cupidity  and  greed,  are  instincts  as  natural  as  that  of 
self-preservation. 

Without  the  incentive  of  reward  in  preferment,  power  or 
wealth,  we  should  have  no  progress.  Any  enforced  leveling  of 
talent  or  ability  would  curb  and  eventually  stop  human  ad- 
vancement. 

Possibly  we  are  advancing  too  fast ;  the  advance  of  Social- 
ism may  be  a  working  of  the  natural  law  of  compensation,  des- 
tined to  put  a  brake  upon  the  wheels  of  a  too  rapid  progress. 


Field,  Walter  Taylor.  (Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  such  Socialism  as  emphasizes  "class-con- 
sciousness" and  the  entire  abolition  of  private  property.  True 
Socialism  should  make  absolutely  no  distinction  between 
classes,  but  should  hold  mankind  as  a  common  brotherhood.  1 
am  opposed  to  the  entire  abolition  of  private  property  as  re- 
moving one  of  the  strongest  incentives  to  labor  and  progress. 
We  need  social  reform  badly  enough,  and  a  check  upon  inheri- 
tances and  large  accumulations  of  private  property,  but  I  be- 
lieve the  remedy  for  most  of  our  social  evils  lies  in  encouraging 
the  wage-earners  to  become  small  farmers  and  small  artisans 
and  in  protecting  them  by  stringent  legislation  against  the  en- 
croachments of  large  business. 

I  am  heartily  in  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  Socialism,  but 
not  with  its  methods. 

—  40  — 


Barstow,  George  Eames.  (Business  man.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism,  first,  because  the  All-Wise  One 
in  His  inscrutable  wisdom  in  arranging  for  His  people  for  oc- 
cupying the  promised  land,  provided  that  every  man  should 
go  and  take  up  the  land  alloted  to  him. 

Second :  The  Creator  knew  what  would  best  contribute 
to  the  social  and  economic  order  of  humanity  in  all  time  to 
come. 

Third:  Socialism  means  a  community  of  property.  I  am 
opposed  to  such  a  social  and  economic  order,  believing  same  to 
be  against  the  public  welfare.  Society  has  now  too  many 
drones,  lazy  and  idle  from  choice.  Such  class  would  be  largely 
increased  under  Socialism.  The  subject's  agitation  reveals 
such  product. 

Fourth:  What  is  needed  in  these  days  is  an  increase  of 
social  justice,  not  social  injustice. 

Fifth :  A  man  should  enjoy  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  and  can  only  do  this  as  he  is  at  liberty,  under  wise 
laws,  to  exercise  his  full  capacity  for  himself;  leaving  to  him- 
self the  right  to  contribute  to  others  as  he  may  choose. 

Sixth :  There  are  some  vital  questions  to  be  solved  for  the 
betterment  of  the  people  at  large,  concerning  social,  economic 
and  industrial  order;  but,  their  best  solution  will  not  be  found 
in  Socialism.  Many  noble  and  patriotic  men  and  women  are 
devoting  money  and  life  to  these  ends,  and  will  in  due  time 
accomplish,  through  wrise  laws,  the  purposes  for  which  they 
strive  and  which  will  be  for  the  healing  and  uplifting  of  the 
peoples  of  the  earth. 


Lee,  Elmer.  (Physician,  Author,  Inventor,  Lecturer  and  Editor.) 

Life  is  experimental  and  whatever  man  wishes  to  try  in 
the  hope  of  bettering  his  condition  will  neither  hurt  him  in  the 
long  run,  and  probably  not  better  him. 

Each  new  generation  of  men  is  largely  unmindful  of  the 
experiments  of  men  in  the  past,  and  feels  that  it  has  a  solution 
for  human  trial,  and  disappointment,  only  to  find  when  it  is 
put  to  the  test  that,  after  all,  it  will  not  accomplish  what  was 
expected  from  it. 

—  41  — 


Man  banded  together  for  a  common  interest,  will  not  go 
far  before  he  meets  reverse  and  disappointment ;  he  will  fall 
out  with  his  associate  and  quarrel  with  him;  differences  will 
arise  which  will  lead  to  dissatisfaction  and  dissolution  of  the 
plan. 

Man  is  primarily  selfish  and  imaginative,  and  seeks  to 
operate  independently  and  erect  for  himself,  his  family  and 
his  affairs.  Man  has  so  much  power  and  invention  that  he 
will  not  long  consent  to  remain  within  any  set  limitation;  he 
will  break  out  and  will  prefer  to  fight  his  own  battle. 

Anything  like  common  interest  and  division  of  labor,  under 
Socialism  or  whatever  name,  will  become  unsatisfactory,  if  not 
to  the  generation  which  starts  it,  certainly  to  its  children. 

Any  system  will  suffice,  were  man  always  in  health,  in- 
telligent in  the  selection  of  food  and  in  the  care  of  his  body. 
Were  man  willing  and  able  to  practice  self-control,  to"  avoid 
self-debasing  habits,  to  abstain  from  tobacco,  liquor,  drugs  and 
venery,  it  would  not  much  matter  what  f 01*111  of  government 
prevailed. 

Social  form  is  less  important  than  individual  conduct.  It 
will  always  be  a  struggle  for  man  to  survive  the  perils  of  life, 
such  as  temptation,  indulgence,  weakness,  accident  and  disease. 
The  test  is  personal  and  continuous,  and  cannot  be  shifted  to 
the  shoulder  of  society. 


Brownscombe,  Jennie.   (Artist.) 

I  believe  in  a  more  rigid  enforcement  of  our  existing  laws. 
They  are  a  precious  heritage  from  our  forefathers;  a  resume' 
of  the  wisdom  of  the  ages.  Where  time  and  altered  conditions 
have  made  it  desirable  to  amend  them,  they  should  be  amended 
by  the  wisest  and  purest  statesmen  of  our  land,  guided  by  the 
trend  of  public  thought. 

I  believe  that  the  great  need  of  this  time  and  of  all  times, 
is  not  Socialism,  better  laws  or  absence  of  law,  but  capable, 
industrious  and  honest  men  and  women,  who  strive  to  abide  by 
and  enforce  the  Golden  Rule  in  all  matters  of  character  and 
conduct.  "Our  duties  are  of  more  consequence  to  us  than  are 
our  rights." 

—  42  — 


Lightner,  Ezra  Wilberforce.  (Journalist.) 

Some  of  the  most  profound  of  thinkers,  some  of  the  grand- 
est of  men  and  women,  have  written  in  regard  to  Socialism ; 
some  on  the  one  side  and  some  on  the  other.  If  in  the  mind  of 
the  majority  of  the  most  earnest  and  thoughtful  and  reasoning 
men  and  women  the  majority  shall  one  day  say  that  what  is 
called  Socialism  is  a  stride  in  the  process  of  slow  evolution 
which  has  brought  us  to  the  measure  of  civilization  now  recog- 
nized, then  whether  or  not  we  are  yet  living  when  that  time 
comes,  Ave  must  accept  that  condition  as  one  of  the  processes 
of  evolution  and  try  the  experiment. 

I  don't  believe  that  at  this  time  anybody  can  say  clearly 
whether  he  or  she  is  a  Socialist  except  in  vague  theory.  There 
are  too  many  bases  for  doubt,  as  there  are  in  regard  to  the 
finality  of  the  political  systems  in  active  operation  today.  One 
thing  that  can't  be  doubted  is  that  from  the  date  of  the  Repub- 
lic of  Plato,  the  Utopia  of  Moore,  the  writing  of  Jean  Jacque 
Rousseau,  the  "Voyage  of  Icaria"  of  Etienne  Capet,  the  essays 
of  Proudhon,  St.  Simon,  Fourier,  "Das  Kapital"  of  Karl 
Marx,  the  tremendous  labor  of  Liebknecht,  Bebel,  Lassalle. 
Singer,  William  Morris,  the  English  artist,  poet  and  philosoph- 
er, John  Ruskin,  and  a  host  of  others,  the  increase  in  numbers 
of  the  supporters  of  the  Socialist  ideal  has  been  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  of  economical  evangels. 

Yet  with  all  this  I  think  that  a  long  process  of  educational 
work  would  be  necessary  to  prepare  mankind  for  the  experi- 
ment, if  it  be  possible  to  make  it  a  success.  William  Morris, 
before  he  had  declared  outright  for  Socialism,  wrote  his 
"Earthly  Paradise:" 

"Dreamer  of  dreams,  born  out  of  my  due  time. 

Why  should  I  strive  to  set  the  crooked  straight  ?" 

Every  thoughtful  person  recognizes  the  crooked,  even 
though  he  may  himself  be  a  crook;  and  even  many  of  the 
crooks,  and  certainly  all  the  rest  of  us,  desire  with  our  might 
to  make  the  crooked  straight  and  to  have  an  "Earthly  Para- 
dise," and  to  hope  that  "At  last,  far  off,  some  good  will  come 
to  all."  We  are  groping,  and  to  grope  earnestly  and  vigor- 
ously is  to  find.  We  shall  find ;  we  must  find ;  or  chaos  will 
come  again.  It  must  not  be  the  invention  of  mere  dreamers, 
however.  In  this  age  it  is  the  practical  business  man  who  builds 
for  permanency. 

—  43  — 


Cutler,  James  Elbert.  (University  Professor.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  as  a  method  or  system  because  of 
the  impracticability  of  any  particular  program  thus  far  formu- 
lated by  Socialists.  In  the  formulation  of  a  Socialist  program 
of'  action  some  important  principle  of  social  progress  is  in- 
variably either  wholly  disregarded  or  treated  superficially  by 
general  statements  which  lack  point  and  application.  The  in- 
ability of  the  Socialists  to  agree  among  themselves  as  regards 
a  program  or  plan  of  action  plainly  indicates  the  limitations 
under  which  Socialism  labors  in  this  respect,  (See  also  "Why 
1  am  in  Favor  of  Socialism.") 


Leveroni,  Frank,  (Counsellor  at  Law.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because — 

First :   It  is  pure  theory. 

Second:   It  is  impractical. 

Third :   It  leads  to  nowhere. 

Fourth :  It  tends  to  destroy  and  it  does  not  supply  any- 
thing in  the  place  of  that  which  it  destroys. 

Fifth :  It  is  opposed  to  Christianity  and  to  Christian  mar- 
riage and  to  settled  economic  theory. 

Sixth :  Its  theory  of  distribution  of  property  is  fallacious 
as  it  overlooks  human  nature,  it  takes  away  the  initiative  in 
man,  it  compels  the  community  to  provide  for  the  laggard  and 
drone. 

Seventh :  It  aims  to  destroy  the  family  which  is  the  cen- 
ter of  civilization,  it  aims  to  place  the  education  and  training 
of  children  directly  in  the  care  of  the  State,  which  woul\Jre 
detrimental  to  the  home  life  and  love  that  ought  to  exist  be- 
tween parent  and  child. 


*     * 


Anderson,  Rasmus  Bjorn.   (Editor,  College  Professor  and 
Translator.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  on  account  of  its  attitude  to 
Christianity.     Its  attitude  to   Christianity  manifests  itself  in 

—  44  — 


the  fact  that  it  is  not  only  a  political  party,  but  also  a  theory 
or  philosophy  of  life.  Its  principles  and  aims  are  wholly  ma- 
terialistic. It  makes  earthly  happiness  the  main  purpose  and 
highest  ideal  to  be  attained. 

I  have  in  mind  Socialism  as  taught  by  its  great  promoter, 
Karl  Marx. 

Socialism  refuses  to  consider  anything  beyond  the  grave 
It  deals  exclusively  with  things  pertaining  to  this  life.  It  re- 
fuses to  answer,  nay,  it  insists  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  an- 
swer the  great  question  to  every  soul:  If  a  man  dies,  shall  he 
still  live?  It  says  we  do  not  know  and  it  is  not  worth  while 
investigating.  Denying  all  connection  between  morals  and  re- 
ligion, it  builds  its  moral  life  on  a  weaker  foundation  than 
that  built  on  Christianity.  Socialism  is  selfish. 


Ferguson,  Charles.  (Author,  Editorial  Staff,  New  York 
American.) 

I  am  not  in  favor  of  Socialism  because  Socialism  is  a  state 
of  mind  in  which  men  are  absorbed  in  the  problem  of  the  divis- 
ion of  goods.  The  true  and  wholesome  preoccupation  of  man- 
kind should  be  the  creation  of  goods.  It  is  of  course  important 
to  divide  right,  but  the  right  division  cannot  possibly  be 
worked  out  until  the  problem  is  envisaged  from  the  engineer 
ing  point  of  view.  The  tools  must  belong  to  those  who  can  use 
them.  And  the  genius  of  our  redemption  requires  that  all 
wealth  shall  be  made  fecund  or  reproductive — that  there  shall 
no  longer  be  any  dead  wealth — that  there  shall  be  nothing  but 
capital  and  tools. 


Baxter,  James  Phinney.   (Author  and  Ex-Mayor  of  Port- 
land, Me.) 

There  is  an  unchristian  Socialism  which  embodies  the 
spirit  of  an  utterance  all  too  familiar:  "Do  to  thy  neighbor  as 
he  does  unto  you."  It  is  impatient  and  intolerant  of  restraint, 
and,  ignoring  individual  freedom,  would  resort  to  force  to 
compel  men  to  obey  its  arbitrary  commands;  indeed,  it  would 

-  45  — 


destroy  the  fabric  of  society  in  the  vain  hope  of  rebuilding  a 
perfect  structure  upon  its  ruins.  What  this  spirit  would  do  for 
the  world  may  be  read  in  the  pages  of  history.  To  achieve  its 
ends,  it  would  employ  cruel  agencies,  and  the  structure  it 
would  rear  would  partake  of  its  own  imperfections,  for  the  un- 
changeable law  is,  men  are  known  by  their  works. 

May  God  deliver  us  from  this  kind  of  Socialism,  and,  in 
His  good  time,  establish  that,  the  beauty  of  which  He  sent 
Christ  to  reveal  to  men.  (See  also  "Why  I  am  in  Favor  oO 
Socialism.") 


Emerson,  Samuel  Franklin.  (College  Professor.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  it  is  a  mechanical  recon- 
struction of  society,  instead  of  an  organic  development. 

Because  it  is  an  economic  readjustment  of  society  instead 
'  of  morals. 

Because  it  is  based  upon  the  essential  antagonism  of  social 
classes  instead  of  essential  co-operation. 

Because  it  is  a  passing  reaction  against  the  present  transi- 
tional system  of  industry. 

Because  it  fails  to  recognize  the  importance  of  the  indi- 
vidual in  all  social  movements. 

Because  it  would  result  in  a  dead  social  uniformity,  in- 
I  stead  of  a  rich  social  variety. 

Because  its  ideal  is  in  reality  drawn  from  the  mediaeval 
and  superseded  social  past,  instead  of  evaluating  the  forces 
of  the  present. 

Because  it  is  saturated'  with  a  false  and  vicious  economic 
philosophy. 

Because  it  misconceives  the  social  function  of  war.  na- 
tional rivalry  and  industrial  conflict  in  the  social  economy. 

Because  it  fails  to  evaluate  the  spiritual  forces  of  society. 


Ellis,  George  Washington.  (Lawyer  and  Writer.) 

In  so  far  as  Socialistic  theory  is  concerned,  beginning  in 
/     Plato's  "Republic,"  reasserted  in  Sir  Thomas  Moore's  "Uto- 

• 

—  46  — 


pia,"  embraced  iu  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century  in 
Europe  by  Fourier,  Baboeuf,  Saint  Simon  and  Cabet,  and  later 
in  the  United  States  by  Greeley,  Dana  and  Hawthorne.  I  re- 
gard as  important  contributions  to  literature,  whose  chief  value 
is  inspirational  rather  than  practical.  These  theories  involve 
such  complete  reconstruction  and  reorganization  of  society 
that  their  attainment  are  placed  far  into  the  indefinite  future, 
yet  their  value  as  social  and  intellectual  ideals  serve  a  very 
useful  purpose  in  human  progress. 

I  accept  in  part  what  is  called  Christian  Socialism  in  so 
far  as  it  desires  to  bring  more  and  more  the  Christ-spirit  to 
bear  in  the  commercial  and  business  world,  but  I  am  opposed  to 
the  substitution  of  co-operation  for  competition  in  the  present 
state  of  human  development.  Co-operation  may  be  all  right 
when  society  has  slowly  developed  by  evolution  up  to  the  point 
where  competition  is  not  needed  to  keep  economic  and  social 
conditions  on  a  natural  and  normal  basis,  but  under  present 
conditions  it  leads  to  economic  monopoly  and  social  poverty, 
as  a  few  selfish  and  commanding  industrial  spirits  get  control 
of  the  whole  plan  of  co-operation  to  the  detriment  of  the  great 
masses.  To  prevent  this  situation  competition  is  the  greatest 
natural  check  on  monopoly  and  one  of  the  best  protections  of 
the  people.  The  advocates  of  this  phase  of  Socialism  1  think 
are  correct  in  their  contention  that  Socialistic  schemes  will  not 
solve  the  labor  problems  without  that  inner  development 
through  education  and  applied  Christianity,  yet  I  submit  that 
they  are  in  error  when  they  insist  that  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment should  not  be  invoked  except  to  remove  hostile  legis 
lation. 

I  heartily  concur  in  Professional  Socialism,  called  by  Pro- 
fessor Ely,  Socialism  of  the  Chair.  It  repudiates  the  doctrine 
of  laisser-faire,  and  in  the  study  of  political  economy  adopts 
the  historical  method.  It  not  only  repudiates  the  laisser-faire 
principle,  but  it  demands  the  aid  of  the  State  to  bring  about  a 
better  distribution  of  the  products  of  labor  and  capital.  It  es- 
pecially desires  that  the  laborer  should  have  a  larger  share  in 
the  products  of  his  toil,  and  helps  the  solution  of  the  labor 
problems  through  the  assistance  of  the  government  in  factory 
acts,  sanitary  measures,  public  parks,  savings-banks,  shortening 
of  the  hours  of  labor,  and  other  similar  measures  designed-  to 
elevate  the  laboring  people.  Such  a  course  I  think  is  more 

—  47  — 


than  justified  by  the  present  economic  and  social  conditions 
in  the  United  States.  The  use  of  machinery  has  enormously 
increased  the  productive  capacity  of  the  laborer  for  his  em- 
ployer, but  his  wages  have  not  increased  in  proportion  as  they 
should.  Invention  and  machinery  have  multiplied  many  times 
the  power  of  labor,  but  capital  takes  practically  all  of  the 
product,  while  the  lot  of  labor  is  little  better  than  in  the  hand- 
made era.  By  this  I  do  not  mean  to  even  imply  that  higher 
wages  would  solve  the  labor  problem,  and  while  it  would  help 
some,  I  wish  here  little  more  than  to  call  attention  to  this  ab- 
normal phase  of  the  economic  situations  in  the  more  modern 
States. 

I  am  opposed  to  what  is  known  as  the  Socialism  of  today 
which  had  its  beginning  in  Frederick  Engels  and  Karl  Marx 
during  the  last  century  and  which  is  now  established  in  both 
Europe  and  America,  and  whose  propaganda  has  tended  to 
meet  with  favor  and  increasing  acceptance  during  recent 
years.  The  central  fact  of  this  school  is  that  the  means  of  pro- 
duction and  distribution  should  be  owned  by  the  community 
and  administered  by  it.  Speaking  of  Socialism,  John  Stuart 
Mill  said : 

"What  is  characteristic  of  Socialism  is  the  joint  owner- 
ship by  all  the  members  of  the  community  of  the  instruments 
and  means  of  production ;  which  carries  with  it  the  consequence 
that  the  division  of  the  produce  among  the  body  of  owners 
must  be  a  public  act  performed  according  to  rules  laid  down 
by  the  community. " 

In  an  address  by  J.  W.  MacKail,  Socialism  is  defined  as 
having  two  principal  divisions,  economic  and  moral;  and  he 
sums  them  up  thus: 

"On  the  economic  side,  its  central  idea  is  the  commuiiiza- 
tion,  the  placing  in  the  hands  of  the  community,  under  the 
common  control  and  for  the  common  good,  of  the  wealth  which 
the  community  has  inherited  or  created,  and  of  the  machinery 
for  preserving  and  increasing  that  wealth." 

U0n  its  moral  side,  its  central  idea  is  the  brotherhood  of 
mankind,  and  the  unimpeded  exercise  by  all  of  the  highest 
functions  and  faculties  of  which  their  nature  is  capable." 

The  moral  side  of  Socialism  as  expressed  by  MacKail  is 
sound  and  should  be  more  generally  adopted  by  all  enlightened 
peoples,  for  it  is  essentially  Christian  in  its  nature  and  influ- 

—  48  — 


ence.  But,  I  cannot  bring  myself  to  accept,  under  niy  present 
information  and  experience,  the  economic  side  of  Socialism  as 
defined  by  either  MacKail  or  Mill.  My  reasons  for  its  rejec- 
tion are  many,  but  I  will  only  give  one  or  two  of  the  most  im- 
portant. 

In  the  first  place,  I  think  that  this  school  of  social  propa- 
gandists have  located  what  they  call  the  social  disease  in  the 
wrong  portion  of  the  social  body,  and  thus  are  offering  the 
wrong  remedy.  The  idea  of  the  ownership  of  the  means  of 
production  and  distribution  carries  with  it  too  largely  the  iin 
plication  that  poverty  is  the  chief,  if  not  the  principal,  cause 
of  all  our  social  and  economic  ills.  I  think  this  is  a  mistake, 
and  too  much  emphasis  is  thus  placed  on  this  phase  of  our 
social  troubles.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  society  suffers  quite  as 
much,  if  not  more,  from  ignorance,  crime,  intemperance,  vice, 
immorality,  etc.  This  is  more  than  confirmed  by  the  students 
of  sociology.  And  inasmuch  as  this  is  the  case,  the  crux  of 
our  social  problems  is  much  more  than  economic,  and  any  social 
program  which  therefore,  is  purely  economic  will  hardly  meet 
our  social  requirements.  No  doubt  poverty  is  a  great  source 
of  social  misery,  but  the  greatest  social  wrongs  are  not  con- 
fined to  the  very  poor.  More  money  per  capita  will  doubtless 
register  some  beneficial  effects  in  most  of  the  other  depart- 
ments of  society,  and  this  is  likewise  true  of  more  per  capita 
intelligence,  morality,  practical  Christianity,  culture,  etc.  My 
opinion  is  that  these  social  evils  can  only  be  removed  finally 
by  the  development  of  the  individual  on  the  one  hand  and 
society  at  large  on  the  other,  through  the  intellectual,  moral, 
religious  and  economic  forces  of  society.  All  the  social  forces, 
in  the  largest  sense,  must  change  and  develop  human  nature, 
in  culture  and  civilization,  and  I  cannot  believe  that  the  me- 
chanical change  of  private  ownership  to  community  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution,  would  be 
sufficient  to  cure  the  ills  of  society  or  put  them  on  the  road 
to  quicker  cure,  than  they  are  at  present. 

Moreover,  there  is  danger  in  the  adoption  of  Socialism  in 
the  present  state  of  individual  and  societary  development.  In 
the  United  States  the  rise  and  development  of  American  in- 
dustry discloses  the  fact  that  in  most  all  the  lines  of  business, 
capital  has  been  organized  and  so  concentrated  as  not  only  to 
crush  out  competition,  but  to  create  such  a  monopoly  as  to 


enable  the  stockholders  and  directors  to  fix  such  prices  to  con- 
sumers as  the  big  corporations  and  trusts  deem  advisable  from 
time  to  time,,  not  in  accord  with  the  laws  of  supply  and  de- 
mand or  the  cost  of  production,  but  in  accord  with  their  desire 
and  ability  to  command  the  tribute  of  the  consuming  public. 
The  representatives  of  these  large  interests,  themselves,  have 
combined  and  through  liberal  contributions  and  the  influence 
of  their  industrial  and  economic  importance  have  built  up  a 
system  of  political  bosses,  in  complete  control  of  the  two  domi- 
nant old  parties,  and  both  the  bosses  and  the  interests  have 
united  to  pervert  the  local  and  national  governments  in  the 
United  States  from  their  true  functions  in  the  interests  of  the 
people  to  advance  and  promote  the  welfare  of  special  interests 
to  the  neglect  and  detriment  of  the  great  majority.  And  thus 
a  few  leaders  in  American  industry  have  secured  possession 
of  the  great  natural  resources  of  the  country,  have  obtained  a 
monopoly  of  the  business  opportunities  of  the  great  American 
market,  and  have  utilized  the  power  of  the  governments  to 
protect  their  unfair  and  unjust  advantages,  in  the  freest  and 
greatest  democracy  of  the  world.  The  contest  to  overthrow 
this  sinister  and  selfish  government  of  the  few  is  exceedingly 
difficult,  because  of  the  minor  and  supposed  divergent  and 
individual  interests,  social  and  political  divisions  of  class  and 
party  prejudice,  and  a  general  intellectual  inability  of  the 
mass  to  fully  grasp  the  importance  of  the  problems  involved, 
so  essential  to  that  united  action  on  the  part  of  the  people, 
necessary  to  meet  the  situation.  The  people  now  have  the 
means  at  their  command  to  have  the  government  administered 
in  their  interests  and  to  control  those  industrial  concerns 
which  have  proved  a  menace  to  the  general  welfare,  but  they 
must  be  educated  as  to  how  to  use  them.  And  to  place  the 
means  of  production  and  distribution  into  the  hands  of  the 
community,  in  the  present  development  of  society,  is  simply  to 
make  it  easier  for  the  few  to  exploit  the  many,  and  it  is  espe- 
cially dangerous  because  the  leaders  would  have  sufficient 
numbers  in  their  employ  and  administration  to  make  it  next 
to  impossible  to  dislodge  one  set  when  once  in  power,  without 
a  resort  to  arms  and  revolution. 

The  example  of  the  Federal  office-holders  in  the  great  ma- 
jority in  voting  and  using  their  influence  to  protect  their  indi- 
vidual positions,  without  regard  to  the  larger  interest  of  the 

—  50  — 


public,  is  such  as  to  make  all  patriotic  citizens  acquainted  with 
the  facts  wish  and  desire  that  their  numbers  be  not  increased 
to  any  such  extent  as  would  be  the  case  in  the  community  own- 
ership of  industry  and  business.  The  history  of  American  large 
cities,  shows  for  the  most  part,  that  these  urban  governments 
are  controlled  and  administered  by  one  set  of  selfish  political 
leaders  after  another,  whose  power  is  predicated  upon  party 
machinery,  held  together  mainly  by  party  patronage,  favorit- 
ism and  public  graft.  And  thus  to  put  industry  and  business 
under  the  administration  of  the  government  is  to  more  than 
multiply  the  dangers  to  the  public  of  those  industrial  and  po- 
litical leaders,  who  have  made  representative  government  in 
the  United  States  little  more  than  a  mere  form. 

Economic  Socialism  would  not  only  place  too  large  a  ma- 
c hine  at  the  disposal  ot  polrlical  leaders  to  be  used  against  Lhe- 
people,  but  it  would  stifle  initiation  and  tend  too  much  to  hold 
society  in  a  static  condition.  Under  individual  ownership  of 
industry  and  business,  under  the  laws  of  legitimate  competi 
tion,  initiation  is  encouraged  by  offering  increasing  rewards 
to  those  who  adopt  new  methods  and  invent  new  things  to  ad- 
vance human  welfare  by  lightening  the  burdens  of  life  and 
labor.  The  spirit  of  rivalry  and  competition  maintains  a  con- 
stant and  steady  demand  for  the  best  that  can  be  produced  for 
the  people  in  all  lines  of  industry  and  business,  which  is  among 
the  strongest  incentives  to  new  thought  and  invention.  Man 
is  naturally  a  conservative  being  and  without  some  stimulant 
will  be  content  with  conditions  as  they  came  down  to  him  from 
the  past.  It  is  true  that  in  spite  of  economic  incentives  there 
will  appear  now  and  then  an  individual  who  is  inspired  by 
higher  motives  for  the  advancement  of  the  race,  but  the  great 
masses  of  the  people  still  require  the  power  and  pleasure  of 
possession,  individual  ownership,  and  the  more  material  re- 
wards of  industry  and  business.  And  so  it  appears  to  me  that 
Socialism  would  tend  to  bring  society  to  a  stagnant  condition, 
arrest  human  progress  most  seriously,  and  discourage  in  the 
future  those  human  benefactors,  who,  in  the  past  have  blazed 
the  way  for  the  marvelous  development  and  advancement  of 
modern  society. 

Finally,  after  waiving  many  other  objections  to  Socialism, 
it  might  be  well  to  observe  that  in  the  present  state  of  society, 
if  we  were  to  inaugurate  the  industrial  Socialistic  regime,  we 

—  51  — 


would  have  still  with  us  all  the  great  social  problems  to  be 
solved,  perhaps  in  different  form,  with  some  additional  ones 
with  entirely  new  features  and  surrounded  with  new  condi- 
tions. To  my  mind  the  different  social  problems  constitute 
the  problem  of  civilization  and  through  the  coming  ages  must 
be  worked  out  together.  All  devices  and  schemes  which  do 
not  include  the  individual  development  and  social  progress  at 
large  are  so  much  wasted  efforts  that  might  be  better  spent. 
The  final  and  ultimate  solution  of  all  human  problems  is  nec- 
essarily educational  and  will  have  the  best  results  if  society  is 
permitted  to  evolve  in  its  natural  and  normal  way.  All  the 
uplifting  forces  of  society  must  be  utilized  to  develop  the  social 
wants  and  economic  demands  of  the  masses,  through  increased 
social  and  industrial  opportunities.  The  people  must  be 
brought  into  contact  with  an  increasing  variety  of  economic 
and  social  phenomena,  carrying  with  the  process  an  ever  groAV- 
ing  demand  for  the  consumption  of  the  best  there  is  in  life 
and  mind.  And  until  the  perfection  of  human  nature,  every 
age  will  have  its  problems  and  its  vices,  in  spite  of  what  we 
think  and  do. 


Allen,  John  Robert.   (University  Professor,  Minister  and 

Author.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  believe  it  will  have 
an  injurious  effect  upon  the  development  of  individual  power 
and  character;  since  it  will  withdraw  the  stimulus  to  achieve- 
ment by  destroying  its  rewards,  and  since  it  will  weaken  the 
attractiveness  of  virtue  by  trying  to  destroy  the  pains  that  fol- 
low vice.  I  do  not  believe  that  Socialism  will  develop  great 
individuals  like  the  present  conditions  even,  unjust  as  many 
things  now  are. 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  on  the  other  hand  because  I  be- 
lieve it  will  be  deleterious  to  society  as  a  whole,  because  it 
will  eliminate  the  entrepreneur  at  the  top,  and  I  can  conceive 
of  no  way  whereby  at  the  bottom  of  the  social  ladder  it  can 
have  the  disgusting  and  unpleasant  work  done,  which,  how- 
ever, must  be  done  for  the  well-being  of  the  race. 

I  am  for  "  applied  Christianity , "  which  in  common  with 
Socialism  denies  the  right  to  use  property  merely  for  personal 
aggrandizement  and  pleasure. 


Giering,  Eugene  T.  (Editor,  The  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.,  Record.) 

I  am  opposed  to  Socialism  because  I  believe  the  discon- 
tent which  it  represents  can  be  very  appreciably  lessened,  if 
not  altogether  removed,  by  other  means  that  have  not  yet 
been  given  sufficient  trial.  Socialism  appears  to  be  striving 
after  something  unattainable  under  such  a  form  of  govern- 
ment as  we  deem  to  be  the  safest  and  best.  It  cannot  be  made 
to  work  out  satisfactorily  until  human  nature  has  changed,  and 
we  are  not  yet  near  the  millennium.  Theoretically  it  is  ap- 
pealing. Practically  it  is  hampered  by  limitations  that  sug- 
gest economic  destruction,  both  of  that  which  is  good  and  of 
that  which  is  bad.  We  are  now  in  the  midst  of  an  evolution. 
The  higher  moral  standards  now  in  the  process  of  establish- 
ment should  suffice. 


"  Why  I  Am  in  Favor  of  Socialism  "  is  a  pub- 
lication similar  to  this,  and  the  price  is  also  the 
same:  paper,  fifty  cents;  cloth,  seventy -five 
cents.  It  will  be  sent  to  any  address  on  receipt 
of  the  above  mentioned  price.  Address:  Edward 
Silvin,  Sacramento,  California. 


—  53 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


EEQ  28  1045 

MAY    1    1^5 

MJVf     as 

MAY    lg,945 

FFR     ft     1Q/I6 

rco     \j      iwtu 

MAY  Vf,. 

*fi9v 

. 

26SI«j52«W 

MAY  2  7  1952  LU 

LD  21-100m-12,'43  (8796s) 

YC   I £984 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


267705 


XIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


